Gadget

This content is not yet available over encrypted connections.

Liberal Democracy

Liberal Democracy
The Free State

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Eagle Forum: Phyllis Schlafly- Choice Not an Echo- From 1964

Source: Eagle Forum-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

"Eagle Forum: Phyllis Schlafly- Choice Not an Echo- From 1964 Quoting Phyllis Schlafly's Choice Not an Echo 'The question for Republic..."

Quoting Phyllis Schlafly's Choice Not an Echo

"The question for Republicans at their 1964 National Convention was: At this crucial point in American history, will we send in our bat boy? Or will we send in our Babe Ruth — a man who is not afraid or forbidden to take a good cut at all major issues of the day? [p.28]

He is the one Republican who will not pull his punches to please the kingmakers. He can be counted on to face the issues squarely. He will make the kind of forthright hard-hitting campaign that American voters admire. This is why he is the man the left-leaning liberals most fear. He is the only Republican who will truly offer the voters "a choice, not an echo". [p80-81]

Behind the scenes, the kingmakers prepared the publicity buildup of several candidates to replace Barry Goldwater. How can the average person spot the kingmakers' candidates? Here is a sure litmus-paper test:

1. A kingmaker candidate does not criticize other kingmaker candidates.

2. Kingmaker candidates criticize Senator Goldwater more than they criticize Lyndon Johnson.

3. Kingmaker candidates never criticize the Democratic foreign giveaway programs.

4. Kingmaker candidates never criticize the State Department or the concessions it has made to the Communist axis.

5. Kingmaker candidates hardly ever raise the issue of Communism, either foreign or domestic. [p.88]

Meanwhile the kingmakers engaged in a frantic search to dig up anybody — just anybody — to prevent Republicans from selecting their obvious candidate. [p.89]

Even after he was dropped by the kingmakers, Romney was faithful to their wishes. On June 7, he violated his long standing

rule against politicking on Sunday to announce: "I will do everything within my power to prevent him (Goldwater) from becoming the party's presidential choice." [p.89-90]

As it turned out, no Republican could have won the Presidency in 1964, but Goldwater inspired conservative Republicans for many years later."

In 1964 pre-Barry Goldwater's win essentially taking over the Republican Party, his conservative-libertarian wing, the Republican Party was very similar to what the Reform Party looks like today. A fiscally and economically conservative party, that worried about debt and deficits, high taxes, centralized big government, over regulation of the economy and taking power away from the states to give it to the Federal Government. As well as believing in strong national defense and being strong anti-Communist Cold Warriors. It was the party that Tom Dewey, Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, put together in the 1940s and 1950s. It was also a party that believed in the safety net for people who really needed it and supported things like Unemployment Insurance and Social Security, and other public assistance programs. Just as long as they were paid for and people who could were expected to work. They were somewhat moderately-conservative on safety net issues. They didn't believe government had no role, but that government shouldn't try to do everything for everybody.

What Conservative-Libertarian Republican Senator Barry Goldwater argued in his 1961 book Conscience of a Conservative, was that America needed another vision. Something to counter the progressive New Deal of the 1940s and that government was becoming too big and taxing too much and we needed a new political philosophy to counter the New Deal Progressives. Conscience of a Conservative lays out that conservative vision for America. Phyllis Schlafly, agreed with Barry Goldwater that America did need a right-wing alternative vision to progressivism. But her politics was a bit different. Barry Golwater, was a anti-big government Conservative across the board. He didn't want big government in our economic or personal affairs and not trying to tell individuals how they should live their own lives. As long as being a strong defense anti-Communist Cold Warrior.  Phyllis Schlafly, was with Goldwater on the economic and foreign policy issues, but they separated when it came to social and cultural issues.

When I look at Phyllis Schlafly's politics today, I see Ron Paul plus Pat Buchanan. Someone who was anti-big government and even anti-safety net when it came to economic policy. But believed in standards and limits to what government should allow people to do in their personal lives. Not just anti-abortion, but anti-homosexuality, anti-gay marriage, they believed women working was not good for the American family and that government shouldn't encourage women to work. They believed pornography should be outlawed across the board. They were anti-immigration and multiculturalism. That America should be governed based on their Christian religious and cultural beliefs. Phyllis Schlafly, to me at least is responsible for launching the Christian-Right and even the Alt-Right today. And Alt-Right radio and commentary from people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. Phyllis Schlafly, is responsible for launching a major political movement in America and one of our most powerful and influential political activists. And deserves some credit for that.
The Dove TV: Phyllis Schlafly's Choice Not an Echo


Friday, September 16, 2016

Harley Davidson: Jennifer Martin- The Motorcycle Experience: Choosing the Best Riding Boots

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

One of the reasons why I love biker culture, especially biker women in biker culture is the style. Tight denim and leather jeans with boots, very common with biker women, as well as biker men. And they biker boots with those outfits which goes as well as french fries with cheeseburgers or vanilla ice cream with apple pie. It's just the perfect combination and perfect outfit. And that biker women tend to be very attractive and feminine and stay in great shape simply because they need to for the lifestyle they live and being able to hand a big bike and being on the road, but also because they care about their physical appearance and need to look good to fit into that culture. And also because leather and denim, just make a great combination. Leather jackets, go great with denim jeans and boots go great with both denim and leather jeans. Boots are the perfect compliment for jeans denim or leather. Looking at Jennifer Martin, a beautiful biker women obviously, just makes my case for how well boots go with jeans and in this case denim jeans. And how great biker women look.

Saturday, September 10, 2016

John Paul: Cues For Conservatives- The New-Left in The Democratic Party

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

"John Paul's Conservative Buzz From John Paul's Cues For Conservatives 'Here's an excerpt from Chapter 7: The tragedy is that most o..."

From John Paul's Cues For Conservatives

"Here's an excerpt from Chapter 7:

The tragedy is that most of the people who call themselves Democrats today don’t have a clue about what their party actually stands for, the far Left ideology it promotes, and the regressive radical policies they support.  They have been effectively “duped” by the unscrupulous Democrat Party machine and media apparatus as Alinksy’s “Useful Idiots” to keep the Democrats ruling the people in perpetual power. Many believe that they are loyal Americans who stand with their party ideologically, without taking the time to study the facts and get the information they need to be informed citizens and voters. The Democrat Party of 50 years ago, that so many cling to, is long, long gone. The JFK Democrats of the early 1960’s, while still left-leaning, at least did NOT support the shredding of the Constitution, generations of dependency on government hand-outs, massive entitlement programs, identity politics and social division, socialism, or the far-Left Marxist ideology of the Democrat Party today. Nor were they Alinsky-inspired radical regressives, leveraging Alinsky’s unsavory and unethical rules of engagement to maintain political power at all costs (where as discussed in Chapter 1, the ends for these radicals always justifies the means, where ethics and morals simply have no place).

In a November 21, 2015 article written by Josh Kraushaar in the National Journal, he writes that Democrats have an identity-politics problem and have become a party defined by identity. He states, “…the main reas­on why Clin­ton is a near-lock for the nom­in­a­tion is that Demo­crats have be­come the party of iden­tity. They’re now de­pend­ent on a co­ali­tion that re­lies on ex­cit­ing less-re­li­able voters with non­tra­di­tion­al can­did­ates.”[1]  Identity politics is extremely divisive and damaging to our political discourse in America, and while it attracts certain special interests and ethnic groups to the Democrats, it pushes away people who don’t support this new dark era in politics. It has the goal of effectively ganging up a range of demographics in the US to unite against the white Christian conservative, the most reviled of all groups in the illiberal lexicon.  Their ultimate goal is to take the property, rights and political power away from the “haves” in favor of redistribution to certain special interests, in order to pursue their socialist utopian agenda.  Of course, it is all in line with the Alinsky rules of engagement, where such divisions serve to “rub the sores of discontent” to help achieve their illiberal agenda for “fundamental change”. The racial and social division in America is becoming as bad as it ever was as a result. Doubtless few self-described Democrats – Millennials and others – understand or appreciate this fact when they decide to support this party."

Had John Paul said that a faction of the Democratic Party believed in the New-Left Saul Alinsky socialist if not Neo-Communist way of doing things, I probably would agree with him. But the Democratic Party is still the largest party in America. And you don't have that title by simply appealing to the Far-Left. The Democratic Party similar to the Republican Party, is essentially three parties into one. That is what you get with a two-party system in a country has huge and politically diverse as we are.

You get a Democratic Party that has a liberal New Democrat wing that I'm from. That Jack Kennedy created and Bill Clinton brought back to life in the 1990s, that Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart and Mike Dukakis, tried to bring back in the 1970s and 1980s. You have what I at least believe is the true progressive wing of the party that sounds somewhat moderate compared with Liberals on social issues and Social Democrats on economic policy. People who believe that government can be used to help people who are struggling, but along with Liberals, believe that government should be used to help people help themselves. But also believe in fiscal responsibility and that government can't do everything for everybody and that unlike Dick Cheney (ha, ha) deficits and debt matters. And these progressive policies need to be part of a budget that reflects the national priorities. But these things need to be paid for and you have prioritize. And there's a limit to what you can tax people without hurting the economy. To get back to my point about there's a limit and even financial limit to what government can do for people. Progressives, also tend to be pro-free trade and somewhat hawkish on foreign affairs. Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman, I believe are perfect examples of a Progressives.

And then you have what I at least believe is the scary wing of the Democratic Party. People who don't simply fit into mainstream American politics. And perhaps even mainstream society. You could call it the Saul Alinsky Wing, or go back back twenty years from the mid and late 1960s and you could call it the Henry Wallace wing. One of the first self-described Democratic Socialists who ever ran for President of the United States. People who believe that the central government has a program to fix everyone's problems for them. That economic freedom and individual success and even individualism, should not only not be celebrated , but are bad things, because it means some people will end up doing very well, while others struggle. That government should not only be big, but centralized to provide the services that people need to live well. Who aren't even that liberal on social issues either. Not fans of free speech if it offends people they claim to care about. Pro-choice on reproduction rights and sexuality, sure but not much else. Whether it's speech, what people should be able to eat and drink, how we spend our money, they all believe these decisions should be for The Collective to decide for everyone else.

But to get back to my friend John Paul's point about the Democratic Party. If the New-Left McGovernites, ran the Democratic Party, if the Democratic Party was a a McGovernite Party, the party that George McGovern created in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Jimmy Carter doesn't become president in 1976. The party doesn't nominate Walter Mondale in 1984 and Mike Dukakis in 1988. Bill Clinton doesn't become president in 1992 and reelected in 1996. Al Gore, doesn't win the Democratic nomination in 2000. Neither does John Kerry in 2004. As far as Barack Obama in 2008, he ran essentially as a McGovermite in the Democratic primaries, which is why I didn't vote for him in the Maryland primary. But then he moved to the center and Center-Left in the general election and has governed as a Center-Left Progressives as president. If the New-Left ran the Democratic Party, Dennis Kucinich, who is to the left of even Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders and as far-left as Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein, wins the Democratic presidential nomination in both 2004 and 2008. Jesse Jackson, would have won the nomination in 1984 and 88.

We're a country of three-hundred and fifteen-million people. Try to get your mind around that number for a minute. We're a huge country in-between two of the largest oceans in the world. In between two of the largest countries in the world at least in land, in Canada and Mexico. Anytime you have a country this huge and this free with all of our guaranteed individual rights, unlike lets say Saudi Arabia, with guaranteed free speech and assembly and now with our New Technology Revolution and social media wave, you're going to get a very diverse country politically, racially, ethnically, religiously, culturally and everything else. Which is why I believe the two-party system in a country that represents the entire political spectrum is now obsolete. America is not a social-democratic country, if we were we would have had a social-democratic president post-Franklin Roosevelt. If the Democratic Party was a New-Left McGovernite socialist party, it wouldn't be anywhere nearly as big as it's today. Some 45-50 million members and instead the Green Party would probably be as twice as it as it's today and who knows what the Center-Left party would be. Maybe I and others would've created something else.

Monday, September 5, 2016

Alan Eichler: Lana Turner-Joan Rivers, 1982 TV Interview

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

This is a classic interview, because of who the pair is and and the lives that they lived. Whatever you think of Lana Turner and I'm fan of her's and whatever you think of Joan Rivers and I she is one of the funniest women I know of, you always knew where they both came from, because they were both very honest about themselves. You look at the movie Love Has Many Faces, (RIP Hugh O'Brian) and then watch this interview and Lana's hair is the same in both appearances. Same color and hair style and her hair looks great in both appearances. Lana Turner, is a true Hollywood Goddess, because she's stood the test of time. Didn't become popular because of some appearance on a reality show and gets a movie or something from that, bombs out and is never heard of. Or spends most of her time in and out of rehab clinics. Lana, became a star early and remained that way well into her sixties if not older. She's one of the best dramatic as well as dramatic comedic actress's of all-time, similar to Lauren Bacall and is still missed today.

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Eagle Forum: Defining the Alt Right- Defining Right-Wing Nationalism in America

American Alt-Right Nazis-
This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

What is the Alt-Right in America and what the hell is it doing linked with the Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump? The Republican Party that is supposed to be the Center-Right party in America and the party of Lincoln. The party of Abraham Lincoln the man who freed the African slaves in America, instead of calling for them to be deported back to Africa or even murdered. Which is what segments of the Alt-Right in America like the KKK have called for. That is the subject of this piece and since this movement is liked to the GOP nominee for president Donald Trump, it's time to talk about this.

The Al-Right, is a collection of European-American, primarily Anglo-Saxon and to a certain extent German-American nationalist groups. Almost exclusively believe that America belongs to Protestants who come from Britain and Northern Europe originally, west of Scandinavia. They aren't just anti-African or anti-Latino or anti-Middle Eastern or anti-Asian. They're anti-Jewish, they're anti-Slav, they're anti-Mediterranean and even anti-Catholic. Regardless of the person's ethnicity or race. And they're predominantly men and see women as their pets. The Democratic Party, has the Far-Left, or New-Left (if you want to be nice) but the Republican Party has their own fringe movement as well. The Far-Right which again are Northern-European Protestant-American Nationalists. Who see America as only belonging to them. And everyone else as Un-American who don't have a right to exist in the United States.

So why would the Republican presidential nominee want to have anything to do with people like this? Why would Steve Bannon who runs an Alt-Right publication like Breitbart, be associated with his campaign. Why does Donald Trump, say things and take policy positions that get endorsed by Alt-Rightists like Ann Coulter and even David Duke? I've argued before that Donald Trump doesn't even want to be President of the United States, or doesn't have much of an idea how to become president. Which would explain why he would take this route to the presidency since the Alt-Right represents a small and even shrinking population in America. But the Trump Campaign, whatever you think of it, does represents forgotten Americans in this country. Who are predominantly Caucasian, Protestant, Catholic and male. People who believe America is going downhill since the 1960s when multiculturalism became mainstream and America started to become the giant melting pot that we are today.

Not saying that all Trump supporters are Alt-Rightists, but those people are not just part of his base, but now part of his campaign. Which is why The Donald is now losing Republican men and women, who are conservative even, but aren't racists. And true Conservatives aren't racist or bigoted anyway. The Trump Campaign represents the America of the 1950s and Donald Trump is selling a recipe and saying that he can return this America to his supporters. Where English-Americans and Protestants and men from these groups, essentially ran America, with everyone else essentially serving as the servants of these people. Even if Donald Trump is not a racist and bigot himself, he's guilty of trying to sell Americans a vision that he can't create and produce. And asking his supporters to pay up front whether The Donald has any real plan and ability to deliver what he's selling. Donald Trump, is not a politician, but a liar and demagogue, which is even worst. And his voters are buying spoiled meat upfront as a result.

Thursday, March 17, 2016

Prager U: William Voegeli: Government: Is it Ever Big Enough?

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

William Voegeli, like most hyper-partisan right-wingers, makes the classical obvious mistake of mixing up social democracy, or democratic socialism or whatever you prefer, with liberalism. In Europe, Liberals, are considered right-wing. Why? Because Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists, are considered Center-Left there. In Canada of all places that constantly gets labeled as a social democracy, even though it has a federal system where the provinces and localities, have real power there, Liberals are considered centrists. Why? Because the social democratic New Democrats, are considered Center-Left or left-wing.

Voegeli, kept saying Liberals want more government and more spending and all the traditional Tea Party propaganda about what liberalism is supposed to be. Replace the name William Voegeli with Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin and you would get the same rhetoric. It’s supposed to be Socialists or Social Democrats, who are terrified of the socialist label (except for Bernie Sanders) who run for the hills every time they hear that label about them. So why are so-called Conservatives like Bill Voegeli afraid to use the s-word when talking about social democracy and socialism more broadly. Because they want to attach Liberals with every big government authoritarian ideology that comes down the pike. Even religious conservatism, whether its Islāmic or Christian. And they’ve been very successful at it at least since the late 1960s.

I’ll answer Bill Voegeli’s question in a couple of ways. The first way somewhat simplistic only because this is a simplistic question. And the second way in a more substantive way. The simple answer government is big enough only when it’s doing exactly what we need it to do. No more or no less, which is basically my definition of limited government. So when it’s doing too much, that’s called big government. When it’s doing too little, that would be called small government. Which is every Libertarian’s marijuana high or drunken fantasy.

The more substantive liberal answer is that you need government to protect, defend and promote.

Protect the people from predators, where law enforcement comes in. Defend the country from predators, which is where defense comes in, but foreign affairs and intelligence as well.

Promote freedom and the general welfare. And that doesn’t mean a welfare state, but protect everyone’s individual freedom and right to be free and live freely, short of hurting any innocent person intentionally or otherwise.

Assist people who need help and for whatever reasons get knocked off their feet. But only help them get by in the short-term as you’re also helping them get themselves up. Finding a job, job training, that sort of thing. Which is basically what the definition of a safety net is.

And then protect consumers and workers from predators that would hurt them in the economy. Not run business’s, but set basic rules again to protect workers and consumers. Which is what a regulatory state is.

Again, I know this sounds simplistic, but we’re dealing with a simplistic question and I’m really just correcting what Bill Voegeli said here anyway. Government is big enough only when it’s doing exactly what it should be doing and nothing more or less. You don’t need a big government managing people’s lives for them from either and economic or personal standpoint. But if you want government doing practically nothing and throwing caution to the wind, try living or visiting a stateless society that has practically no government. And see how long it is before you try to escape from that country.

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Bernard Goldberg: "You Know Who Donald Trump's Media Groupies Remind Me Of?"

Donald Trump Network-
This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Now I know I must be losing it and perhaps need to go through a long extended head examination. Because I’ve just agreed with Bernie Goldberg for the second time in two weeks. The first time two weeks ago at the FNC Republican debate. Where Bernie called Donald Trump essentially a panderer. Whose just telling his supporters what they want to hear essentially and that he would essentially destroy the Republican Party even if somehow he would win the presidency.

Because Donald Trump is so far out on the Right that he won’t be able to come through and if he did he would destroy the party, because Americans tend not to be Far-Right fascists and like the ideas of tolerance and inclusion and not dividing Americans. Bernie’s second point which is what this piece is about has to do with the Trump spokespeople at CNN especially. That the Trump Campaign doesn’t have real media consultants, but media groupies, cult followers that look at The Donald as some God or something that is incapable of doing anything wrong.

Thanks to Donald Trump CNN is getting their best ratings at least since the Malaysian Airlines crash. If not the Trayvon Martin killing in 2012 when they decided to donate their entire network to covering the George Zimmermann trial. But my main point here has to do with the fact I thought I was the only person who noticed this about the Trump spokespeople. Because thanks to the Tea Party/Neocon FOX News Channel and the Far-Left Move On MSNBC, I’m stuck with CNN and C-SPAN as my only real cable news sources. And CNN can’t get enough of the Trump media team.

Every burning house that Donald Trump walks in leaking gas and creating a bigger explosion, his media crew goes out-of-their-way to make it look like he’s completely innocent of whatever bonehead or bigoted thing he just said. The man picks up a KKK endorsement and instead of saying this might be a problem for them, they try to deflect it. And say that Trump is not a racist. Instead of acknowledging that maybe there’s a problem with their message if members of the Ku Klux Klan the most powerful domestic terrorist organization in America are endorsing their candidate.

Donald Trump tells people if they punch protestors in the face, he’ll pay their legal bills. “Back in the old days these protestors would have been taken out on stretchers.” Etc and unfortunately I could go on, but what does his media team that works for him do? Do they say he shouldn’t use violent rhetoric like that in public? No because that would be responsible and perhaps draw less attention and ratings to this horrid reality show of a presidential campaign. They say and I’m paraphrasing that since Mr. Trump didn’t actually hit the protestors himself, he’s innocent of whatever people around him do. Obviously none of these people are lawyers, because they would know about conspiracy to commit. When you get people to commit your crimes for you. Which is why Charles Manson is in prison today.

I swear to God as an Agnostic (so take that for what it’s worth) that Donald Trump could come out in favor bombing abortion clinics and perhaps saying in public that is what the pro-life movement should really do to prove they love Jesus. And his cult followers who are probably all addicted to Trump Vodka or Trumpism, which is a dangerous narcotic that is used to get people behind you, his supporters would say that, “that position just proves how pro-life Donald Trump is. By saying that people should be murdered, because they perform abortion.”

Tomorrow The Donald could come out in favor of President Obama and say how great of a man he truly is and a great president. And all of that birtherism was fun and games. And his cult followers would say, “see! We told you that Mr. Trump is a uniter and not a divider. He’s trying to rally the country behind our president.” Okay, the last one is a stretch about as long as the Mississippi River or Donald Trump’s hands, but you get the idea. But similar with any religious or now political cult, first with Ron Paul earlier this decade and now Donald Trump, their man is incapable of doing anything wrong. There’s no such thing as personal responsibility when it comes to their leader. Every time something goes wrong, it’s someone else’s fault. Or there’s some larger conspiracy trying to bring him down with these people. And they’ve created a really dangerous political environment for America as a result.

Friday, March 11, 2016

The National Interest: Opinion- Michael Lind- The Neocons Are Responsible For Trumpism

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: The National Interest: Opinion- Michael Lind- The Neocons Are Responsible For Trumpism

What is responsible for the rise of Donald Trump I don't think can be explained so simplistically as "blame it on the Neoconservatives." There are a lot of things like the facts that we do have a shrinking Caucasian working class in America in the South, Midwest and Northeast. The Caucasian-American working class is much smaller today that it was even ten years ago and is only going to get smaller. Most of the country hasn't seen their wages go up in the last fifteen years. These are the millions of Americans that Pat Buchanan was able to speak to in the 1990s and early 2000s. That Rick Santorum was able to speak to in 2012 and to a certain extent Donald Trump now. Millions of Americans who no longer see the America that they grew up which wasn't nearly as diverse in the 1960s and 70s as it is today.

We now have an African-American President of the United States. We could very well have our first female President of the United States next year if Hillary Clinton is elected in 2016. Homosexuality is not just accepted in America but gays can now get married everywhere in America. We've always been a diverse country ethnically and racially, but now those things are celebrated to the point where our two young adult generations my Generation X and the Millennial's, don't judge people by ace at all. Which is why things like affirmative action has lost so much political support and in danger of being thrown out by the courts. This is simply not the country that Richard Nixon's so-called Silent Majority grew up with where it wasn't just men that basically ran the country, but predominantly Anglo-Saxon Protestant men from the Northeast and the South.

Those Tea Party rallies from 2009 all the way to 2012, when they said they were going to "take back America", that is what they were speaking about. Take back America from people who've made America so much more diverse and tolerant. When Donald Trump says, "we're going to make America great again", I at least believe he's speaking to the Silent Majority and is saying that he wants to make America great again for them. The Caucasian American working class of Irish, Polish, Jewish, Italian, Anglo and other Americans of European background. He's not saying make America great for everybody, but for the Silent Majority that he believes have been left behind. Even though this man has nothing in common with these people from an economic, cultural, political or religious background. He sees a huge political opportunity here for himself that he's exploiting.

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

Prager U: Adam Carolla- Who Not to Vote For

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review: Prager U: Adam Carolla- Who Not to Vote For

I agree with Adam Carolla’s point about the politician who says they’ll fight for you, but I think there’s a bigger problem in American politics. Actually its like a huge fast food combo of a problem. Imagine like a 40 ounce soda, a triple cheese burger and enough fries to feed three kids. But its only for one person and it cost around six bucks. Well if you eat this for lunch on a regular basis and you can eat like this at a lot of fast food joints in America, you’ll have a huge problem down the line in expanding body mass.

Well that is how big my fast food combo problem is when it comes to American politics. Politicians and candidates and who over promise, combined with dumb gullible voters who are dumb and gullible enough to take those political promises at face value. Who if we required citizens to get licensed in order to vote would fail every time the test came up, simply for not doing their homework as American voters. So don’t vote for people without first doing your homework on them. Listen to their soundbites, go to their rallies, listen to their commercials and interviews on TV. All that stuff is good and a way to become and informed voter. But means nothing if you don’t bother to your homework on them. And check to see if their current rhetoric and positions matches their past record.

The other politicians and candidates who you shouldn’t vote for are people who’ll say they’ll give you free stuff. Unless they’re very rich and know where you live, they’ll won’t be able to give you free anything. If you’re currently paying taxes including payroll taxes. So no such thing as free stuff from government for taxpayers. Even government has to get money from somewhere and sometimes oversees to pay for the public services that it provides. They don’t get their money by being great Wall Street investors or poker players. They don’t use Monopoly money or grow money on their trees in our public parks. They get their money from charging their taxpayers. And what we’re supposed to get in return are public services that they promised us. Including for the people who don’t want them.

Not all politicians are crooks and not all politicians are liars. And some of our politicians are neither, which seems to be shrinking minority today. The politicians and candidates that you should vote for are the people who know what the situation of the country and your community is. Have a realistic solution to solve them based on real evidence, experience and pragmatic policies. Shown they already know how to govern, because of course governing is about choosing and even working with people from the other party from time to time. (A good lesson for the Tea Party) And who doesn’t promise to do this or that, especially promises that just seem impossible for them to accomplish in their first or next term. And who don’t say they’ll give you free stuff. But instead lays out how much their programs are going to cost and then has a realistic and responsible plan to pay for them.

Monday, March 7, 2016

Washington Examiner: Opinion- W. James Antile- Did Dumbed-Down Conservatism Lead to Trump?

The Donald-
This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: Washington Examiner: Opinion- W. James Antile- Did Dumbed-Down Conservatism Lead to Trump?

What I’m about to say here may sound like that I’m at least implying that Donald Trump supporters are a pack of fools. Who’ll believe a used car salesman who tells them that Ford Escorts are as luxurious as Mercedes, if the salesman is charming enough. But that is not far off, because we have a reality TV star in a presidential candidate in Donald Trump who claims to be the person who’ll save America. And take America back as the Tea Party would put it and is some hard-core conservative or something, even though there’s nothing in his professional and personal background that suggests he has anything in common with them. Donald Trump ideologically, has been a Center-Left Democrat most of his career. His support for women’s rights and civil rights, etc. Pro-choice on abortion as late as 2004-05 when he was pushing 60.

But then Barack Obama becomes president and the Tea Party emerges and he believes he needs to change his tune if he wants to have any real influence on the Republican Party. Who doesn’t go Right, but goes Far-Right and doesn’t join the birther movement, but becomes the leader of it. Who claims based on nothing the Muslims were supporting 9-11 in New York and New Jersey. Who now has a base of support whose not interested in one’s record and professional background, but what they’re currently saying. And you speak the Far-Right’s politics that Christians should be in charge, Muslims don’t deserve the same constitutional protections as Christians, Latinos are Un-American and so-forth and so on, Barack Obama is destroying America, you play very well with this community. Which might be thirty-five-percent of the Republican Party, which is a sad state of affairs for them, but they represent maybe 15-20 percent of the country as a whole.

Donald Trump didn’t create the Phyllis Schlafly/Pat Buchanan and Donald Trump movement. What he did was own it and be able to speak to it and have the money to organize it to the point where now he’s to the point that he’s the favorite right now to be the next Republican nominee for president and take down the GOP with him in November. Where a lot more Americans will be voting along with Richard Nixon’s Silent Majority. Including women of all ethnic and racial backgrounds and Latinos and others that aren’t part of The Donald’s base. Even though Big Don had almost nothing in common with his voters five years ago before the birtherism and now is so loved by them that he’s getting KKK endorsements. But his voters don’t care about records and what people have done in the past. Just what they’re saying now. And the candidate who speaks to them is all they’re interested in.

Thursday, March 3, 2016

Skep Torr: The Dark Side Of Political Correctness

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review: Skep Torr: The Dark Side Of Political Correctness

The dark side of political correctness, where should I start? The two most offensive aspects I find about it are the hypocrisy and the pure fascism of it. Apparently in PC World minorities are entitled not to be offended even if the critic is correct with everything they’re saying. But majorities are essentially free speech targets. In PC World you would almost be expected to make fun of criticize Caucasians, especially if they’re on the right. What the New-Left calls white people or the man. But even if you’re correct in how you criticize anyone else you’re somehow a bigot. Someone is bigoted to point out the horrible human rights record of Saudi Arabia when it comes to women especially. Because Saudis are Arab and Muslim. Even though they have a horrible human rights record.

But if you make fun of and criticize Southern Anglo-Saxon Protestants when they make bigoted statements towards women and gays, you’re somehow progressive, because you’re speaking the truth. Even though SASP’s are no more bigoted towards gays and women as Islamists. And then the fascist element if it. This idea that you can’t say something, because it might offend someone else even if you’re correct in what you’re saying and you especially can’t do this in college. Perhaps the first place where you want free expression and ideas to be heard so people can learn about them and learn how to think for themselves. I mean where do political correctness warriors think they live? It can’t be Communist Cuba where they wouldn’t be allowed to hold these PC rallies without government permission. They live in America where we all have a guaranteed right to free speech.

The alternative to political correctness is education and I mean real education. Not someone standing up in front of a class and telling people how to think, but instead sharing actual facts and real information and different philosophies out there and then letting the students figure out what this all means and what’s good and bad based on what they have learned. And instead of banning language because it might offend someone you use criticism that is correct to improve yourself. And use language and thought that’s simply wrong as an opportunity to point out how ignorant the commentator is. Instead of trying to shut someone up simply for being stupid and expressing themselves. Instead educate them on their own stupidity and see if they’re smart enough to learn and improve themselves. But fascism is never the answer in a liberal democratic free society.

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

The Boston Globe: Opinion- Jeff Jacoby- 'If Supreme Court Had Term Limits, Confirmations Wouldn't be So Bloody': How to Reform The U.S. Supreme Court

Source: The Boston Globe-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

For the life of me I don’t understand why two of the most important jobs in America which is being a U.S. Justice and public school teacher, don’t have to deal with the same accountability and in some cases no accountability as everyone else in America. Why is it that U.S. Justice’s and public school teachers don’t have to prove they deserve to keep their jobs and are doing a good job. And have to make a case to their superior that they should continue working in that same position. With their superior saying that they either deserve to keep their job, or perhaps should be released, be promoted, given a raise, or a pay cut.

But that is how the U.S. Supreme Court and the broader Federal judiciary operates. They’re given lifetime appointments and once appointed they can only be removed through impeachment and conviction by Congress. And only through serious ethical and criminal violations. Not for simply doing a bad job. And where I agree with Jeff Jacoby (for perhaps the first time in my life) is that is a big problem. And why Congress is so partisan right now, especially in the Senate where the two parties have to work together just to run the place properly. Because the Supreme Court and judiciary is always in play every two years during the Congressional elections with both parties fighting to win back or keep control of the Senate. To appoint or block Federal judicial appointments.

My other issue with the U.S. Supreme Court is the simple size of it. We’re a huge country of three-hundred and twenty-million people, with fifty states and some states that would make big countries. Like Alaska, California, Texas and Montana. And yet we only have nine U.S. Justice’s including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And they have all of this power and can literally throw out laws passed by Congress and executive orders from the President with their judicial review that has become very political. And in many cases looks like laws get thrown out, because 5-9 Justice’s disagree with the laws. Instead of ruling on the constitutionality of them. Even though the Supreme Court has no one to answer to and has practically hundred-percent job security. Short of committing ethical or criminal violations.

Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress gets regulate the size and scope of the Supreme Court and broader judiciary. There’s no set limits for how large or small the court should be. You don’t need a constitutional amendment to reform the court. We need to start holding U.S. Justice’s accountable for their decisions. I’m not talking about making it democratic, but simply accountable. We need to end lifetime appointments and have Justice’s come up for renomination after their terms are up. And let the President decide if that Justice should be reappointed or not. With the Senate deciding on that reconfirmation. Or weighing in on a new appointment for that seat from a new nominee. And then expand the court to 50-52. One Justice for each state so the whole country can be represented on it.

The old phrase ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’, could have been written for the U.S. Supreme Court. This is too important of an institution for it to be unaccountable in a country this large, free, democratic and important. U.S. Justice’s and Judges in general, should have to prove their qualifications and job performance on their job just like most if not all Americans. (Except for public employees. Ha, ha!) And you do this by holding them accountable for their judgment and expanding the court so more Americans are represented there. Not with a vote, but knowing that someone who comes from their state is up there representing them and defending the U.S. Constitution. And will need to do a good job in order to keep it.
Seeker Daily: How is a U.S. Supreme Court Justice Appointed


Friday, February 26, 2016

Prager U: George Will- A Progressive's Guide to Political Correctness

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review: Prager U: George Will- A Progressive's Guide to Political Correctness

I’m glad George Will didn’t use the word Liberal when talking about political correctness and blaming Liberals for political correctness. When the fact is it’s actually been real Liberals such as myself and many others, who have bashed political correctness and pounding social justice warriors with humor and obvious facts. That these social justice warriors couldn’t see if they were pounded in their face with a hammer.

I also don’t know of one damn thing that I disagree with Will in his video here. Political correctness is so much fun and easy to make fun, because it’s so stupid. Very similar to Sarah Palin. It’s almost too easy, but at the same time you can’t layoff on it, because of how creative it makes you when critiquing it and putting it down. It’s just another sign of our failing education system and the lack of intelligence with our young people and that they just go to college to become the next Che Guevara. Or whatever Far-Leftist is considered ‘like totally awesome’ at the time.

One way that I look at political correctness is that it makes everyone whose against it and in favor of free speech, but who isn’t a bigot, a comedian. Because again of how stupid it is. The idea that in a liberal democracy and perhaps the only pure liberal democracy with all the guaranteed individual rights that all Americans have including free speech, that people can’t say something, because someone might be offended by it.

In PC World, which is about the size of an ant on a football field as far as the support it has, the truth is not important. Meaning PC World and Congress, have a hell of a lot in common and party with each other every Saturday night. What’s important in PC World is people’s feelings. You can’t tell someone whose failing that they’re, well failing, because it might hurt their feelings. Even if it’s in their best interest to know they’re simply not up to the task at hand.

And the other angle that I’ve mentioned before is the pure hypocrisy of it. In PC World only minorities are entitled to not be offended. Redneck jokes are considered progressive, because if those rednecks are Caucasian, male, Christian and Anglo.Bbut African-American ghetto jokes even if they’re not about African-Americans in general, but just people from those ghettos, are considered racist. Jokes about men, are considered progressive. Unless those men are on the Left and are minorities.

But jokes against women, unless again they’re minorities and are on the Left, are considered sexist. Unless those jokes are about female right-wingers like Sarah Palin. I’m not even sure political correctness is the right term. How about the Communist Speech Control Police instead? I think that would be more accurate since we’re not talking about offensive speech, but speech that offends the Far-Left. Speech that offends New York City and San Francisco primarily.

I’m going to try to finish this on a more positive note or at least a constructive critical note. Free speech, does anyone really not know what that means? How about free expression? Any explanation needed there? The truth? Any questions on that one? Since when did these things become negative and things to look down upon? When did San Francisco and NYC get to decide what the other 290 million people in America get to say and get to think? Why should Americans fear the truth? If we don’t know where we come up short then how can we ever improve. No person is perfect and we all have things we need to improve on. And we can’t do that until we know where we come up short.

The truth should never be considered the enemy especially when it’s negative. Because it’s an opportunity for one to self-improve. And speech especially when it’s wrong is an opportunity to inform people about their ignorance and tell then what is right. Which is what would be my message to so-called political correctness warriors. What I at least call Communist speech patrol persons. I can’t say patrolman, because that might offend female PC warriors.

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

The Book Archive: CSPAN's BookNotes With Brian Lamb: Frances Wheen- Karl Marx and The Communist Manifesto

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: The Book Archive: CSPAN's BookNotes With Brian Lamb: Frances Wheen- Karl Marx and The Communist Manifesto

I agree with Frances Wheen about Marxism and Communism and I would put it this way. It depends on what form of Marxism and Communism that you’re talking about. Because the Soviet Union of Russia defined itself as a Marxist-Communist state where the state-owned the means of production in society with no private economy and private sector. But in actuality it was a Leninist state that went much further than that and instead outlawed not just private ownership and individuality and individual freedom all together. When I blog about leftist political correctness, I throw out terms like Marxist-Fascists and Marxist-Communists to describe fascism from the Far-Left. When I probably should replace Marxist with Leninist or Castro, to describe political correctness followers on the Far-Left.

We are now down to one Leninist society in the world today. Which would be the Communist Republic of Korea, which would be North Korea and that is a good thing for the rest of the world not including North Korea. You could argue that we’ve never had a Marxist State in the world, at least not as far as a major country. China, really is the People’s Republic of China. They don’t have political freedom and free speech, but they have a fairly open economy with socialist principles when it comes to the welfare state. And people there own their own property and can start business’s and move in and out of the country somewhat freely. Whatever people think of Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Russians now have similar freedoms as the Chinese, but perhaps more individual freedom when it comes to things like religion.

Karl Marx with the Communist Manifesto, was arguing for a classless society and where there weren’t any rich people or poor people. That people were just people and not rich or poor. Which are goals that Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists in social democracies and here in America with Bernie Sanders and his supporters, push for all the time. But through a private enterprise economy and free society where people can live their own lives and live freely. But where they’re highly taxed and where business’s are highly regulated to ensure economic equality for all. So there aren’t any poor people in society. Which is how most socialist states now operate. Whether it’s Scandinavia, Britain, France, Greece, etc. And we can argue about how successful those economic systems are. But that is how they operate. Instead of having the central government trying to run the whole economy and society.

Monday, February 22, 2016

AEI: Arthur Brooks- Narcissism is Increasing. So You're Not so Special

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review: AEI: Arthur Brooks- Narcissism is Increasing. So You're Not so Special

The internet and even the social media revolution by in large have been great things. I’m not a blogger without it, but with every new way of people expressing themselves comes more ways of people showing more of themselves than others would like to see. And to think more of themselves than they actually are. With social media and internet wave has also come with an increase in how others live and how they present themselves. And of course I’m talking celebrity culture and tabloid news. Or what I like to call tabloid TV which is called reality TV. But anyone who is actually familiar with so-called reality TV and how it operates knows that there isn’t much that is real about. Participants are actually encouraged to act out, not be themselves which if different.

We now live in a world where not everybody, but everyone who thinks they’re awesome or whatever and with pop culture has to have whatever is new and has to have it as soon as it’s new. Because if they don’t, they believe they’re so not awesome or hot or whatever. Because even though they just got a new i-phone (to use as an example) it’s not the latest i-phone. And their friends who perhaps they just met on Facebook will think they so yesterday or whatever. So we have a culture that is now dominated by celebrities and new technology and a young generation that for the most part is only interested in those things. When they’re not protesting against the Washington Redskins or what people wear for Halloween or whatever the latest political correctness fad is.

We live in a world where people want to be like whoever their latest favorite celebrity is, who also happens to be a narcissist in many cases. And they think they’re as awesome as that celebrity and live their lives as if they’re trying out for the latest reality/tabloid TV show. So of course they’re going to live like the whole world revolves around them with a giant size mirror for walls in their parent’s basement where they currently live. And that is another thing. We have a generation of narcissists who aren’t do very well economically right now and they present themselves as if they’re the hottest celebrity in Hollywood. Even if they’re currently living in their parent’s basement in Canton, Ohio. (No offense to Canton) With a college degree worth nothing, or having to drop out of college, because they could no longer afford their student loans.

Once someone thinks they’re the center of the world, they lose touch with reality and Planet Earth. And are so far out-of-touch that they couldn’t get back in touch with a Star Trek cell phone. The most important tool that Americans will ever have in life is the truth. Especially about themselves and always know exactly who you are. Your weakness’ and yes your strengths. So you know where you’re solid and where you need self-improvement. So you never are out-of-touch with reality. And you take things for what they are. You don’t view reaching a thousand followers on Twitter or Instagram as a major life achievement. Especially if you’re currently unemployed or can’t pay your own bills. Which might be why you have so many social media followers, because you have too much free time. Self-confidence generally speaking is a good thing. But only when it’s justified.

Thursday, February 18, 2016

The National Interest: Opinion: Daniel R. DePetris- 10 Questions to Ask Before Intervening in Libya Again

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: The National Interest: Opinion: Daniel R. DePetris- 10 Questions to Ask Before Intervening in Libya Again

It’s not that intervening in Libya in 2011 was the wrong decision. The American, European, as well as Arab intervention there saved as many as a hundred-thousand lives from the Libyan governmental forces. It was the aftermath of that war where the United States, European Union and Arab League, all failed. We knocked out the Qadhafi Regime and handed the country over to Libyan rebels that simply weren’t ready to govern and defend a country the size of Iran and Saudi Arabia in size. The Libyan military and security forces, including law enforcement, simply weren’t ready to defend this large country even with only six-million people. Plus the fact that the National Transitional Council in Libya, only represented at most half of the country and they weren’t ready to govern and defend the entire country.

So now Libya has essentially been divided in half with an east and a west. Without any true national government. Not all that different in how America looked in the 1860s before the Civil War. Or how Vietnam looked before the Communist North took over the entire country in the mid 1970s. And because of this power vacuüm ISIS has moved into Libya and about ready to control part of this large country, because again there is no real national military, national law enforcement agency and no national government, to push back and prevent ISIS from coming in. Whatever you think of the Iraq War and I’m against it, but America didn’t bail after we knocked out the Hussein Regime. We stayed, stayed, stayed and are still there. The Iraq War would have been a hell of a lot worst for Iraq had we not stayed after we knocked out the Hussein Regime in 2003.

I believe America, Europe and the Arab League, should and need to intervene in Libya again, with coöperation from the two warring government’s there, but to put it simply we need to do it right this time. Destroy ISIS and whatever other terrorists group are there, but then stay to help a unified Libya develop their own military and law enforcement agencies and national government. As well as the provincial government’s there so they can govern and defend themselves in the future. And that would mean bringing the two government’s there together and forming a national unity government. With one executive, one legislative and one national judicial branch. As well as one government for each province and locality so this large country and govern and defend itself. And no longer be vulnerable to rebels and terrorists groups.

Libya, is in America’s and Europe’s interest, because ISIS is now there and they’re a threat to us. Not the same threat as lets say Russia, but they could hit one of our embassies or hit America inside of the United States. Libya is also in America’s and Europe’s interest, because its’ such a large country. Only Algeria has more land than Libya in Western Arabia. And it’s simply ‘too big to fail.’ (A phrase from the Great Recession) And we need to at least try to make this country work which is what we’ve done in Iraq and Afghanistan with limited success and are still trying to help those big countries succeed as well. The West and the Arab states, can’t afford to have a large country that is in chaos that is being run by terrorists, because we and them could get hit by those groups. And the United States and European Union should help Libya in the air with the Arab League on the ground, to destroy ISIS.

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

The Federalist: Opinion: Lewis M. Andrews- Political Correctness Is A Mask For Far-Leftists Intellectual Insecurity

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review: The Federalist: Opinion: Lewis M. Andrews- Political Correctness Is A Mask For Far-Leftists Intellectual Insecurity

I agree that political correctness is a mask for insecurity on the Far-Left, as well as the Far-Right. When Neoconservatives hear things that they view as Un-American or immoral and want stricken down and prevented from ever being heard again. But with the Far-Left they view some world in their Utopian dreamland where people they view as insecure and have been persecuted in the past to the point that they deserve governmental special protection. To the point that minority groups shouldn’t have to even hear criticism about them even when it’s true. That the only people who should be criticized are ‘The Man’, (meaning the White man) Christian-Conservatives and even right-wingers who are minorities. And they should be portrayed simply as ‘White people’ with dark complexions.

Who wouldn’t want to live in a world where everything is swell. (To quote The Beaver) Where everything is perfect, where people regardless of race or ethnicity, never have to hear anything negative about them, because everything is swell. They’re perfect. No such thing as teenage pregnancies or poverty. But that is not the world we’ll ever live in, at least in my lifetime. We have a large religious-right in this world, both Christian and Islamic. And to say that only Christian-Conservatives are bigots towards women and gays and leave Islamists off the hook, is denying facts that are right in front of you. To say that only Anglo-Saxon redneck jokes are acceptable, but if you make fun of African-American ghetto people and impersonate people from that community, you’re a bigot, but jokes and impressions of rednecks are perfectly acceptable, is a form of bigotry.

If you believe only the Christian-Right and rednecks, are the real bigots and Neoconservatives in general, but Islamists who have similar positions towards gays, women, as well as ethnic and racial minorities and in some cases would go even further and are more authoritarian and would put gays to death simply for being gay, make the case. Try to make the case that only Caucasians have bigoted views. That only the Christian-Right hates gays and believes women should be subservient to men and good luck with that. Perhaps you’ll win the lottery and win a million dollars. Become a millionaire on Wall Street by only investing only five bucks. Never get wet in a Seattle rain storm, or ever see snow in Minnesota again, even if you live there year-round, etc. Maybe you’ll just become the most bless person in the world as well.

Friday, February 12, 2016

Library of Law & Liberty: John O. McGinnis- The Political Dangers of Rising Political Correctness

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review: Library of Law & Liberty: John O. McGinnis- The Political Dangers of Rising Political Correctness

I have several issues with political correctness, but I believe my main issues gets to the Marxian, or Marxist angle of it. That suggest freedom of thought and speech is somehow dangerous. Which is how authoritarian regimes stay in power by preventing their regimes from having to hear from any real opposition from inside of their country. The more that communications has advanced just in the last twenty-five years makes that even more difficult. But for the life of me I can’t understand why someone who calls them self a Liberal or Progressive, would be arguing for something that is illiberal and regressive. Which is preventing free thought and education from flowing to the people these illiberal’s say they care about.

The other angle about political correctness that I hate is the pure hypocrisy of it. You make fun of the Christian-Right about their bigoted views about gays and their place in the world for women, you’re funny and progressive. You make the same jokes about the Islamic-Right or Islamists, who in some cases are even further right than the Christian-Right on those issues, you’re a bigot. You make fun of Anglo-Saxon rednecks jokes and call rednecks Jim Bob and Mary Lou and accuse them of having kids with their cousins and make kissing cousins jokes, you’re funny. You make African-American ghetto jokes about people named Tyrone Jackson and Sheneka Jackson and jokes about all the different fathers that Sheneka has had for each baby she has, you’re a bigot.

The phone booth size political correctness world that illiberal’s live in, (phone booths are booths that people use to make phone calls in) jokes about minorities and criticism even if true about is considered bigoted. But jokes about majorities even if wrong and highlighting stereotypes about Caucasians, especially Southern Anglo-Protestants, are considered progressive. Americans who can’t take a joke, should stay away from comedy, or only listen to illiberal New-Left comedians. And while they’re doing that maybe they’ll be able to learn to walk with both legs again after they get their foot out of their ass. Maybe they’ll drink more alcohol and less caffeine and take up pot and learn to relax. Perhaps go outside and see a world where not everyone agrees with them. Which is what liberal democracy is about the right for people to freely express themselves and share their viewpoints.

Remember we’re talking about liberal democracy. Not illiberal democracy or Marxist Statism. We’re talking about a society where people can freely express themselves and be very informative. Or risk sounding like a complete asshole who know everything about nothing and nothing about anything of value. And in a society like that you’re going to hear things that might offend you. That you might disagree with and even find hateful. You’re also going to hear things that are inspiring and very informative. You would be wise to pay attention to the hard information. Get out of your coffee houses and put your i-phone down from time to time and you might actually learn something. Even accidentally, but you would be doing yourself a lot of good. While you put the asshole in their place for being exactly that, but not trying to silence them simply for being ignorant.

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

AEI Ideas: James Pethokoukis- If You Want Government to Spend Like a Nordic Nation, it Also Has to Tax Like One

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: AEI Ideas: James Pethokoukis- If You Want Government to Spend Like a Nordic Nation, it Also Has to Tax Like One

One thing with having a not only a Democratic Socialist, but a self-described Democratic Socialist running for president for the Democratic Party and doing well, (Bernie Sanders is not the first Democratic Socialist Democrat to run for president) is that you have someone with the political guts to say, ‘taxes will not only go up if I’m president, but they’ll go up on the middle class.’ Bernie Sanders, is a very smart guy whatever you think of his politics. He knows that there’s only so much that you can tax the rich and only so much the IRS will ever see from that for a couple of reasons. The rich won’t want to pay all of these new taxes, especially to pay for the cost of living of middle-income workers. And they’ll send their money oversees to countries where they wouldn’t be taxed as high. Senator Sanders, knows this, but the question is will he share that with voters.

So of course middle class taxes would go up in a democratic socialist administration, if somehow a President Sanders could get his programs through Congress. A new Democratic Senate wouldn’t be enough, he would need a new Democratic House as well. With a lot of new Progressive Caucus members, or Democratic Socialists being elected to both chambers. Which won’t happen, I mean Paul Ryan will be Speaker of the House in the next Congress. Even if Democrats win back the Senate in the next Congress. But putting that aside voters who are looking at Bernie Sanders, especially middle-income and lower middle-income, people making lets fifty-thousand-dollars a year, or less, need to know what voting for a Democratic Socialist for president comes with. A bigger more centralized government in Washington. With a smaller private sector and higher taxes on everyone.

As Jim Pethokoukis mentioned in his blog, taxes in Scandinavia even if their welfare states are progressive, are regressive. They’re roughly flat and come with high sales and payroll taxes, to go along with flatter income taxes. Where everyone pays taxes including lower-income workers. So forget about the ten-percent tax rate in America which is our lowest tax rate. That would be more like 20-25, maybe, 15, would be probably be the best to hope for. But if you’re making forty-thousand-dollars a year right now and are lets say a teacher, or police officer, you’re currently paying ten-percent. Under a President Sanders if he got his economic plan through Congress, that worker would at least be looking at a fifty-percent tax increase. With the promise of better public services. Even if they can no longer make those decisions for themselves in the private sector.

Socialists (today’s modern Progressives in America) point to Scandinavia all the time that there high tax, big centralized government, big welfare states work so well over there. So we should do that here. While always leaving out some really huge facts. Lets take Norway and Sweden. Physically big countries roughly, especially Sweden which is roughly the size of Turkey and Afghanistan. But in Sweden’s case only have about ten-million people. Sweden is also a large energy producer with oil and gas, the same thing with Norway. They’re not just large energy producers, but large energy exporters. Their government’s bring in a tone of revenue for their government’s and can afford to be very socialist and generous’ with their taxpayers money. America, huge country with a huge population, that still imports energy from other counties. We can’t afford to that generous with our taxpayers money.

For the life of me I don’t understand why Hillary Clinton is not making this argument with blue-collar voters. Whether it was in Iowa, or New Hampshire and wouldn’t she then take that to South Carolina and Nevada. And tell voters in these states that they would be looking at steep tax increases even if a President Sanders could get his economic plan through Congress. That this plan is not just radical, but its unrealistic, but it also wouldn’t work. American companies and foreign companies, would conclude that America is simply to expensive to invest in. But not only that, because their workers, who still have jobs, because their employers managed to stay in the country, don’t have to spending money to buy our products anyway. And then Hillary should say she has a much better plan for the middle class. That is about higher wages and job creation. Not higher taxes and bigger government. But maybe this is what she’s struggling right now.

Monday, February 8, 2016

Louder With Crowder: Steven Crowder- 'Myth Busted- Adolph Hitler Was a Socialist Liberal': Give Me a Break!

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I hope Steven Crowder isn’t a professor of political history, or German history. Because his students would leave his class knowing less than what they knew going in. Crowder, knows less about Socialist Liberals and socialist liberalism, than Ben Carson knows about foreign policy and Donald Trump, knows about national security and Norwegians know NASCAR and Texas rodeos combined. Adolph Hitler, wasn’t just a Socialist, but a Marxist. Nothing liberal, or democratic about the man. Socialist Liberals, believe in democracy and personal freedom, with a big welfare state when it comes to economic policy, but not a Marxist command and control government-run economy. This idea Crowder throws out that Hitler was an inspiration for the KKK and other Southern Anglo-Saxon racist Democrats, again not Liberal Democrats. But right-wing Democrats who are and would be Far-Right Republicans today.

Hyper-partisan Tea Party Republicans, seem to believe that the only way they can look good is if Democrats and people they see as Liberals look bad. So they don’t talk about communism and socialism anymore, but instead one big mother ideology that they call liberalism. That they probably made up when they were getting high in their pickup trucks in South Carolina, or some place. They may officially be against marijuana and legalization, except for themselves. But of course they always leave out actual liberal ideas and values that most of the country including Conservatives actually support. Equal rights, equality under law, tolerance, judging people individually and not as members of groups, personal freedom, economic opportunity for everyone, public infrastructure and education, etc.

Adolph Hitler, was monster who didn’t believe in liberal values and conservative values either. Who just didn’t hate Jews, but Slavs, Gypsies and I’m sure Africans as well. Not that Europe had much of an African population back then. This idea that any of these hateful policies would be liberal, when he was completely against the actual liberal values I mentioned in the last paragraph, would be like saying the Saudi Kingdom is run by Conservatives. Because they have a state religion and are not just fundamentalist, but have a state religion and treat women as second-class citizens, as well as ethnic minorities in Saudi Arabia. When the fact is Conservatives not only believe in a republic, but Separation of Church and State, as well as Freedom of Religion. Which all includes all religions. The Tea Party, just sounds like hyper-partisan desperate liars, when they need to compare Liberals with a evil man like Adolph Hitler.

If you want to call Adolph Hitler a Liberal, don’t wine when someone on the Left who might be as stupid as you and perhaps you could settle that in a debate, compares Ronald Reagan with a Saudi, or Iranian theocrat. Because Ron Reagan was pretty religious, at least after he bombed in Hollywood as a b actor and got into politics instead. Which many times actually has less truth in it than Hollywood. If you’re going to describe someone’s politics, here’s an idea. Know what their politics first and then be able to explain them. Instead of comparing saying everyone on the Left is a Liberal, or everyone on the Right is a Conservative. I realize that could cost you ratings and subscriptions from people who were passed up when brains were being passed out. But at least you could be educating people instead of contributing to the state of ignorance in America.

Thursday, February 4, 2016

Notes On Liberty: Edwin Van de Haar- Liberalism and Sovereignty

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress: Notes On Liberty: Edwin Van de Haar- Liberalism and Sovereignty

Here’s another interesting piece and discussion from Notes on Liberty. And something The New Democrat debates all the time in the Classical Liberalism group on Google Plus. If you’re on Google Plus which we are and are interested in classical liberalism, I suggest you check that group out. Just look for the photo of the great Classical Liberal Milton Friedman.

Because when you’re talking about liberalism, what are you talking about exactly. Are actually talking about liberalism, or are you talking about libertarianism, or socialism, or Marxism. Because these are all different philosophies. Or are you talking about socialist liberalism, which combines social liberalism with a heavy belief in personal freedom. But with economic socialism and a huge welfare state that is financed through heavy taxation.

I and this blog fall into the Social Liberal camp. A heavy belief in both personal and economic autonomy, but with a limited government there to not only protect our individual rights and freedom, but to help people in need help themselves so they can to also live in freedom. So we separate from the Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialist, or Socialist Liberal camp, but also separate from the Ron Paul Libertarian camp. Where government is there just to protect the borders, defend the homeland and prosecute criminals when they hurt innocent people.

Social Liberals, share things in common with Libertarians. Because both factions believe in a lot of personal freedom short of hurting innocent people, but also holding people personally accountable for their own decisions. And we both believe in a lot of economic freedom. With low taxation to encourage economic investment and success. But we apply the don’t treat on me belief to both social and economic policy. As long as you aren’t hurting anyone from either a personal and economic standpoint, your business is just that. Social Liberals believe in a regulatory state not to run business’s, but to protect consumers and workers. And that is where we separate from Libertarians.

And I could get into people who are called Modern Progressives, who believe in both the welfare state and the nanny state, but now also have a speech state. That says government should decide what speech is appropriate and what isn’t. The so-called political correctness warriors. So-called Progressives that believe its the job of government not to expand freedom, but to be the national parents of the country and even protect us from ourselves. But this philosophy has nothing to do with liberalism and looks more like Neo-Communism, or Marxism, with a capitalist economic system and political freedom. When you’re talking about individual freedom it really gets to social liberalism, libertarianism, what is called conservative libertarianism and to a certain extent even socialist liberalism.

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Human Events: Mark Skousen- If Megyn Kelly and Fox News Want to be Taken Seriously

Source: FNC-Megyn Kelly-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Before I make Megyn Kelly sound like a dumb blonde from Beverly Hills, or the valley in Los Angeles where she competed with Britney Spears for Valley Girl of The Year and even beat her, I’ve been with her on the so-called Donald Trump debate. She’s been damn right about The Donald from the beginning and along with Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith and perhaps Charles Krauthammer, the only people at so-called Fox News, (Tea Party News in actuality) who’ve gotten The Donald and his realty show for a presidential campaign right from the beginning. That he’s a one-man reality show and when he says he’s not a politician you better believe him, because he should have nothing to do with politics and government. Because the man only says and does things to be popular whether he believes in them or not.

The other positive thing I would give the Valley Princess, I mean Megyn Kelly credit for is that she and Chris Wallace, I believe have both done a great job with the Republican presidential debates. Chris Wallace, is actually a journalist and perhaps he, Shep Smith and Carl Cameron, perhaps get lonely at FNC for being the only real journalists there. With the rest of the FNC crew sounding and looking like Human Events, Washington Times, or Washington Examiner, columnists. Before I watched the first GOP debate I was expecting FNC to set up Jeb Bush with a lot of softball pitches so he could swing for the fences and hit a lot of home runs. Why they bash The Donald and the Far-Right candidates, in order to make the GOP look better. But they’ve done a very good with all the candidates.

Now as far as the bimbo image at Fox News. I agree with Mark Skousen, but I would put it differently. When you’re lead anchorwoman says that White Christmas, ‘is just for White people’, you have a problem. When you say Santa Claus, who doesn’t even exist by the way, (sorry kids) ‘must be White’, you have a problem. Or claiming Jesus was White and I could go on unfortunately, but Megyn has made all of these claims in the past. It would be one thing if she was doing this on some public access channel in Huntsville, Alabama, but she has a big voice on FNC. And when she throws out this nonsense, it gets out and makes herself and the network she works for look like they’re dumb as bricks and are not in touch with the real world. Because you’re not if you actually take any of these quotes seriously and believe them.

For a women to be a bimbo, you have to be really attractive and dumb at the same time. I’ll grant that Megyn is a very adorable and a beautiful women, but she’s skinny as a stick and looks like a Valley Girl on TV. And when she makes those dumb comments she just backs that image up as a dumb blonde. Whatever you think of MSNBC and their talk lineup, MSNBC at least their management is not nearly as Far-Left and socialist as they come off. They’re a business looking for ratings and if that means having a lot of Far-Left commentators in order to do that, then that is what they’re going to do. And maybe Fox News is the same thing with the Tea Party. And just has a lot of people on to speak for the Tea Party and showcase their point of view for the ratings. Even if their management is not that Far-Right.
TPTV: Megyn Kelly- 'Santa Is What He is'


Friday, January 22, 2016

The National Interest: Opinion: Daniel McCarthy- 'The Ugly Truth of Barack Obama’s Last-Gasp Liberalism': Really?

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: The National Interest: Opinion: Daniel McCarthy- 'The Ugly Truth of Barack Obama’s Last-Gasp Liberalism': Really?

I feel a little strange commenting on the Obama presidency and it’s impact on America and the rest of the world when it still has a about a year left in it. There are several president’s who’ve accomplished a lot for good in bad in their last year in office. President George W. Bush for example had to deal with the collapse of Wall Street and the banking system in his last year as president. But with Daniel McCarthy essentially arguing that liberalism American and otherwise is dead, I sort of feel the need to weigh in on this. Since again we still have a Center-Left president who is a Liberal, or Progressive, even if he’s a moderate one when it comes to civil liberties and freedom of choice issues.

When Barack Obama came to office, the American economy was literally collapsing. He inherited a budget deficit of over a trillion-dollars and a national debt that rose seven-trillion in the previous eight years and was a eleven-trillion when he took office. Plus the Great Recession just added to that with an economy shrinking at seven-percent and we were losing seven-hundred-thousand jobs in each of the last two months of the Bush Administration. Which adds to the unemployment rolls which adds to the deficit and debt with so many people who previously had middle-income and better jobs now receiving Unemployment Insurance from the Federal Government.

President Obama, had a lot to deal with in his first days as president, plus weeks and months. Like passing a Federal budget and the appropriations bills that the previous Congress and President Bush failed to pass. He had to get a stimulus bill through Congress to get the economy to stop dropping and buy it time to start recovering again. Which is what happened by the summer of 2009. America started creating jobs again by the spring of 2010. The President had forty-five-million Americans without health insurance and lot of those people simply couldn’t afford it. All of this on top of an economy that was falling. Which were the reasons for the auto bailouts, the American Recovery Act, the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform. All of this legislation in his first two-years as president.

And that is before you get to the President inheriting two wars in the Middle East. With no clear end to when either one would be over and the hundreds of billions of dollars that was borrowed from other countries to pay for those wars. Seven years later is America perfect and is every problem that the President inherited completely solved with nothing left for the future president to have to deal with? Of course not, but that is not how you judge presidencies. You judge them by the State of The Union from which the president inherited to how it was when they left office. Wages aren’t as high as we would like them and the size of the American workforce isn’t as large as it was in 2008. But the economy is no longer falling. The deficit is now 1/3 of what it use to be at around four-hundred-billion dollars. In April we will have seen six straight years of job growth and by the summer seven straight years of economic growth. More Americans now have health insurance than before.

I’ve always seen Barack Obama as a progressive pragmatist. Not as a Socialist, which the Tea Party loves to throw at him, especially the Birthers. Or a Neoconservative/Moderate Republican that actual Socialists like the Noam Chomsky’s of the world see him as. I see the President as Progressive who has big progressive goals and values, but won’t fight to the death for them and come up empty. So of course he’s not Bernie Sanders. He’s someone who goes issue by issue and looks for the best solution to each issue and then looks for the best solution possible. He had a Democratic Congress for his first two years and a divided Congress with a Republican House and Democratic Senate for the next four. And his last two years he’ll have a Republican Congress. So of course he’s had to compromise even with his own party in Congress a lot.

America really at least since the 1960s with the Cultural Revolution and then add the Reagan Revolution of the late 1970s and early 1980s, has always been as Barry Goldwater like to say a big government out of our wallets, bedrooms, boardrooms and classrooms country. Which is why both Center-Left Liberal Democrats (the real Liberals) like Jack Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and yes Barack Obama, have done pretty well politically in this country. And why Center-Right Conservatives (the real Conservatives) like Barry Goldwater, Ron Reagan, George H.W. Bush and you could add Dick Nixon as well, have done well in America as well. Because they’ve tended to know where the people are and share their values and what they can accomplish politically as president. Senator Goldwater, was obviously never president, but he fitted in well with the Center-Right.

Liberalism, is not dead. Assuming Hillary Clinton is the next Democratic nominee for president and she becomes president, whether she governs as a Liberal or a Progressive, she’ll try to move the country forward from the Center-Left. And if she does that she’ll pretty successful politically. As long as she knows where she wants to go and can avoid big government and political scandals and handles issues competently. So in this universe as long as Liberals are actually that and don’t try to govern, or win office as Socialists and even Democratic Socialists, Liberals as long as they stay as who they are and stay in the Center-Left as people who believe in both personal and economic freedom and creating a society where everyone can succeed and use a limited government to help create that, they’ll do very well politically. Which is the politics that Barack Obama has always represented.