John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

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

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin- What is a Classical Liberal?

Source: The Rubin Report- There's a little liberal in every non-statist- 
Source: The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin- What is a Classical Liberal?

I've been asked many times in the past what are my politics. I'm been accused ( if you want to put it that way ) of being a Libertarian or some other right-winger especially on social media, when I say I'm against government-run health health care and health insurance, especially when there would be no other options for health care and health insurance. Or when I come out against free speech over political correctness. My response has always been I'm a Liberal, Classical Liberal if that helps you sleep better at night.
Source: A Libertarian Future- Liberalism 
This blog is a Classical Liberal or JFK Liberal blog. This is not a social democratic or democratic socialist blog, progressive sure! In the sense that I believe in progress and through government action, but bot total government action. People who work in government God bless them all, but they're no smarter than people who work office jobs in the private sector and have to make payroll and profits every week and month.
Source: AZ Quotes- Friedrich August Von Hayek, on Liberals
So this socialist idea that if you just let government run things and create this new government program or put more money into a current government program even if that means less individual freedom, choice, and responsibility, that things would automatically get better reminds me of the saying that you have to be a narcissist to believe you're the center of the universe and are perfect, well you have to be a Socialist to believe that government at any level not just has all the answers, but always has all the answers. Especially when you're talking about a large organization whether that's run by imperfect people and in some cases mistake prone people because they're overworked and have too much responsibility.

So, that's why I'm not a Socialist democratic or otherwise because I don't believe government has all the answers and therefor you need an educated free society to be able to manage their personal and economic affairs. Which is sort of the definition of the freedom which is the freedom of self-determination and for people to chart their own course in life and be able to make out of it what they put into to. Enjoy the fruits of their labor and productivity and deal with the consequences of their mistakes and hopefully learn from them so they don't make the same mistakes in the future. And if you're wondering why I'm a Liberal, I just explained that I believe the best society is an educated free society. Not a statist society where you have a government big enough to try to manage people's lives for them.

I'm not a Libertarian, because the modern Libertarian ( let's call them ) sound like they're if not more antigovernment than anti-big government, they're at least as antigovernment as they're anti-big government. And especially believe that every form of government tax or rule is somehow some form of slavery or something and they tend to be very conspiratorial and sound like they operating off of a whole bottle of whisky or were released from some mental institution without their medicine, they tend to sound like they've lost touch of reality and live in a different universe or only only on Planet Earth as visitors, but mentally not really here. I'm not antigovernment and I don't bash government programs and government daily. I'm anti-big government, because I don't want government running our lives for us. I want want free educated people to manage their own lives for themselves.

Liberalism, ( or classical liberalism if you prefer ) is not about small government or big government , but a political philosophy that advocates civil liberties and individual rights, liberal democracy with free and fair elections along with all the individual rights both civil and economic that come from a liberal democratic society. And even a safety net for people who truly need it and for whatever reasons aren't living in freedom with the means and tools to pay their own way, but not to manage their lives for them, but to help them back up so they can live in freedom. Liberals, don't believe they're smart enough to not only manage their own lives, but to manage other people's lives as well, so why would government be even smarter and should have any more power over others lives than just themselves. 

Monday, July 16, 2018

The Washington Post: Opinion- Elizabeth Bruenig: 'This Is Not Your Grandfather's Concept of Socialism'

Source: The Washington Post- U.S. House candidate Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Democratic Socialist, New York-
Source: The Washington Post: Opinion- Elizabeth Bruenig: 'This Is Not Your Grandfather's Concept of Socialism'

Elizabeth Bruenig, is right that what's called democratic socialism or social democracy, is not let's just say it which is communism. The authoritarian-totalitarian wing of socialism. Britain and Sweden, are not North Korea or Cuba, so let's just put all that into the record and evidence on the table, but that's not my main point here. Where I disagree with Liz Bruenig, has to do with where she argues that democratic socialism/social democracy works well in the United Kingdom and Scandinavia, it would automatically work in America. That if we just replaced our federal form of government, our federal republic and replace it with a unitarian big centralized formed of government with a British or Scandinavian, or Anglo or Nordic welfare state, that would automatically work in America, since to works in Britain and Scandinavia. That is where she's wrong.
Source: Washington Free Beacon- U.S. House candidate, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Democratic Socialist, New York 
It would be like arguing that since America has this liberal capitalist economic system that has produced the largest economy in the world where we're the only country in the world with at least a 100 million people or more with a per-capita income of 50,000 dollars and one of two countries in the world with at least a 100 million people with a per-capita income of 30,000 dollars or more, Japan being the other, that Britain and Scandinavia, should scrap their democratic socialist models and replace it with a decentralized form of government and a liberal capitalist system, where the people there would have a lot of responsibility, but freedom as well to manage their economic and personal affairs.
Source: Politico- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialist. Socialist Republic of Vermont 
We're not a wealthy country, or a wealthy big country, a wealthy large country, we're a wealthy huge country. Whatever you want to say about China, America's per-capita income and living standards are still about eight times greater than China's. Even when China's economy passes America's as the largest in the world, China will still be a developing country where the only people who are doing well in China economically are people who live in their biggest cities, with everyone else in the country and that would be hundreds of millions of people in China living under third-world living conditions.

A big part of the discussion that Democratic Socialists like Senator Bernie Sanders and his followers in and outside of government in America like to leave out or just leave out whether they're aware of it or not, is that the countries they like to point to as having high living standards under a democratic socialist system, is with Sweden, Norway, and Finland, have very small populations. 5-10 million, with large pieces of land. Sweden and Finland, are about the size of Turkey physically with a about 1-10th the population. Turkey is a large country with about 75 million people, similar to Iran. And Nordic countries are all large energy producers, oil and gas. Scandinavia, has a democratic socialist economic system, because they can afford it. Lots of money with very people to take care of. Very similar to how the Saudi Kingdom operates in Arabia.

So, if Democratic Socialists really want to scrap the American form of government with our federal system and replace it with a democratic socialist unitarian form of government with a socialist welfare state, maybe they should be pushing to get America off of foreign energy all together and making us completely energy independent. Getting us off foreign oil and gas altogether and producing American alternative energy like solar, but also more American traditional energy like nuclear, oil and gas. Bringing in the financial resources that it would take to fund this big socialist welfare state without having to tax Americans and American businesses to the point that it would make it very difficult to work or run a business in America, because of all the taxes that we would have to pay for Welfare. 

Friday, July 13, 2018

The Blaze: Glenn Beck- 'Socialism is Diet Communism'

Source: The Blaze- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont-
Source: The Blaze: Glenn Beck- 'Socialism is Diet Communism'

Just on a personal not first and then I'll get into what Glenn Beck said about socialism, but doesn't Glenn Beck look like one of those Pac-12 college professors who who is always wearing a suede jacket or some other sport jacket carrying a coffee cup from his favorite coffee house and on his I-phone or staring at it, who probably lives just outside of San Francisco or Seattle if not in one of those big cities, with that cheesy goatee he's been wearing for about a month or so? As much as he puts down socialism and Socialists and tend to make fun of those people and I tend to agree with him on these issues, he kind of looks like one of those people with that goatee. I mean Tom Hayden move over, because Glenn Beck could probably take your place.
Source: The Blaze- Glenn Beck, versus Democratic Socialists 
As far as socialism versus communism and I'm talking about democratic socialism versus communism. So let's say Britain before the Jeremy Corbyn Socialists take over that country, versus the Communist Republic of Korea, ( otherwise known as North Korea ) this blog has covered this issue a lot and there not the same things. Social democracies/democratic states like a Britain or Sweden, are very democratic as far as how they operate and there is a good deal of private sector and individualist activity and freedom in the country, unlike like North Korea which is essentially under complete lockdown and run like a prison. And then you have countries like Venezuela, that on paper are supposed to be social democracies, but in actuality are moving to become a total socialist state where even the media will completely be under state control, if the Maduro Regime is successful there.
Source: Religio Political Talk- This sign should say instead , "escape Venezuela while you can, because the Socialists have ruined it."
Democratic socialism is real as far as a real alternative to both liberal capitalism which is what we see in America with a very large private sector and a very liberalize economy and society, all sorts of individual rights and protections, including property rights, privacy rights, civil liberties and communism on the Far-Left where agains the state is in complete control on the country with the responsibility in seeing that everyones needs are met and taken care with people giving up all forms of individual freedom in exchange for the state being responsible for their welfare, with strict punishments for people who get out of line and protest the communist state.

Where I think I agree with Glenn Beck is that democratic socialism is a step away from let's say just socialism where you have both democratic and authoritarian aspects combined into one governing philosophy like in Venezuela and communism way over on the Far-Left which is the most authoritarian philosophy anywhere on the Left and perhaps anywhere on the political spectrum everywhere.

And what we're seeing in the Democratic Party right now especially with young Democrats, is people who call themselves and even capital D Democrats embracing both forms of socialism. Democratic and communism and saying that the horrible news and situation in Venezuela is really overblown and North Korea is not really as bad as the U.S. Government especially our intelligence community claims. That what we see in Europe especially in Scandinavia is what America should look like or what we should try here, which is what Bernie Sanders wing of the Socialist-Left argues for in America.

Because of the Nationalist Far-Right taking over the Republican Party and the ANTIFA/Democratic Socialist Far-Left taking over the Democratic Party, were seeing both of our once two great political parties collapsing or at least being reinvented. Where Conservatives and Conservative-Libertarians, are now being looked down upon in the Nationalist Republican Party and being viewed as political dinosaurs and we're seeing Conservatives actually leaving the Republican Party now. People like Max Boot, Joe Scarborough, Jonah Goldberg, and others people and being replaced by people who think Russia is an ally and Vladimir Putin is a good man and people who embrace other authoritarians around the world.

And in the Democratic Party, we're seeing Socialists finally coming out of the political closet and not just embracing socialism in all forms, but embracing the socialist labels and no longer hiding behind progressive or liberal, because those labels not only no longer fit their politics and perhaps never have , because they're not people who believe in liberal democracy and don't think Franklin Roosevelt and other Progressives are progressive enough for them. And now and into the near future at least I believe we're looking at socialist Democratic Party at least as far as their voters and membership, at least outside of the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic, the South in America.

Back in the day, Republicans hated authoritarians and authoritarianism even the Christian-Right and their policies even if they tried to embrace those voters to hold onto and gain power. And so did Democrats who led us through World War II and tried to eliminate the Communists State in North Vietnam in the 1960s and the Communist State in Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

Now, instead of having a conservative center-right Republican Party and a liberal/progressive center-left Democratic Party, that both were anti-authoritarian cold warrior parties, the two major political parties at least their membership and bases are saying authoritarianism might be okay and worth looking at. As long as it's their form of authoritarianism. We're seeing the collapse of the centers in the two major political parties, which is very bad for American liberal democracy going forward if the two major political parties don't believe in it.

Thursday, July 12, 2018

The John Birch Society: Solution To Big Government

Source: The John Birch Society- Who is this? 
Source: The John Birch Society: July 4th Solution To Big Government

Keep in mind, this video is from The John Birch Society, which is sort of like The National Enquirer or The Star when it comes to political and governmental news. Not exactly award winning when it comes to news, because they tend to be made of antigovernment Libertarians and Far-Right conspiratorial Nationalists, who believe the 9/11 attacks were made up or an inside job, the CIA murdered President John F. Kennedy, etc, not exactly people with a good deal of judgement and perhaps even honesty.
Source: Renew America- Big Government, in need of Weight Watchers 
Having said all of that the speaker in this video ( whoever she is ) did make some good points about big government and the solutions to big government. I don't agree with her that current makeup of the U.S. Government is unconstitutional, misplaced and at least in some areas doing too much and overwhelmed and doing things that should be left up to the states, sure! But that's different from being constitutional or unconstitutional.
Source: Tenth Amendment Center- No to big government 
If you want to get rid of big government, you should at least know what it is. And I know what you're thinking, that sounds like some crazy commonsense that anyone with half of a brain could understand. But the two words big and government get thrown out a lot by people who think they know what they mean together, but in a lot of cases don't know what big government is and believe in a form of big government themselves and perhaps aren't even aware of that. So, before you bash big government, make sure you know what you're bashing. Which sounds as crazy as making sure your parachute works before you jump out of an airplane 20,000 feet in the air. But try it and you might see the benefits from that of actually knowing what you're talking about before you actually talk about it.
Source: Freedom and Prosperity- Say no to big government 
According to Wikipedia

"Big government is a term used to describe a government or public sector that is excessively large and unconstitutionally involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector. The term may also be used specifically in relation to government policies that attempt to regulate matters considered to be private or personal, such as private sexual behavior or individual food choices.[1] The term has also been used in the context of the United States to define a dominant federal government that seeks to control the authority of local institutions—an example being the overriding of state authority in favor of federal legislation.[2]"

Big government is not just government that's too big, because why is it too big in the first place, because it does too much and has too much authority in areas that should be left up to the states or localities, private sector, or involved in areas where it has no business being involved in, in the first place.

Like telling consensual adults who they can sleep it or live with.

Regulate how people communicate with each other because they're worried about people being offended.

Telling consensual adults who they can marry.

Or trying to prevent people from a certain religion from even entering the United States.

Telling people where they can get their health care and health insurance.

Taxing people to the point where it makes it hard for them to run their business or even pay their bills on their own, because their taxes are too damn high. ( Pun intended )

These are all examples of big government which is government either doing too much or being involved in areas where no level of government should be involved in the first place like being involved in free adults private affairs and lives.

So, now that we know what big government looks like let's then look at how we get it and can get more of it. The easy answer to that and something that a layman might say would be that big government comes from our politicians and the government itself. Well, that would be partially true, but that would be like saying food comes from the grocery stores, but without farms growing and producing the food that we eat, the grocery stores wouldn't have food to sell at all.

Big government doesn't come from our politicians and government officials, but where do they come from? To paraphrase the great political satirist George Carlin, they didn't just suddenly appear from Mars or the Moon, they came from the communities and states that elected them. In order words big government comes from the people who vote for the politicians who support big government and then back it while they're in office. If a solid majority of people in a community, state or country wants big government, then that's exactly what the people will get in a representative democracy, at least until it gets thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court.

So, if you don't like big government and don't want it, I have another commonsense solution for you which might give you more reason to believe that I'm not only crazy but have my very own mental institution or at least ward that was built just for me and others who also believe in commonsense. If you don't want or like big government, don't support it, don't vote for it, and campaign against it. Know the people you're considering for public office before you actually vote for them. ( Another commonsense solution )

No more blind voting and vote for people that share your political and national values, instead of voting for people who you think sound cool or look hip. Vote for people who actually represent your values and if that means you believe in individual freedom and free choice and you do your homework, you're going to vote for people who believe in those things as well and against big government. And as a result you'll get less big government in the process.

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Liberty Pen: Charles Krauthammer- Insights on Big Government

Source: Liberty Pen- Syndicated columnist & Fox News political commentator Charles Krauthammer-
Source: Liberty Pen: Charles Krauthammer- Insights on Big Government

At risk of stating obvious ( not that I've never taken that risk before ) and I feel in this case it might be necessary since the term big government gets thrown out a lot I believe it's necessary to define exactly what big government is and what it isn't. Because it means a lot to everyone and to some people like Socialists and Communists, big government doesn't exist at all to them because they believe in unlimited government in many cases. And for Anarchists or people who call themselves Anarcho-Libertarians, big government to them is government that tries to do anything without their direct personal consent and permission. So it's important to explain exactly what big government is and what it isn't first and then Charles Krauthammer second.
Source: Jan Welflin- Charles Krauthammer, on Conservatives 
To put it simply, big government is government that does or tries to do too much. And if that is not simple enough, I suggest that maybe you have issues with the English language and perhaps need a translator to follow along.

But government attempting to run private industries and nationalizing private businesses are examples of big government.

Government telling free adults who they can consensually live and sleep with would be examples of big government like these so-called sodomy laws that attempt to outlaw homosexuality.

Government telling people who much they can eat and drink or what they can eat and drink, these nanny state laws would be examples of big government.

Government telling people where they can send their kids to school, would be an example of big government.

Government telling people where they can and can't get their health care and health insurance and trying to outlaw health care and health insurance in the private sector, would be examples of big government in America, even if Britain likes that type of health care system for themselves.

Government trying to outlaw law clearly constitutionally protected forms of free speech and expression. Like critical speech, hate speech even, pornography, certain forms of music and music videos that have a lot of adult content in them, TV shows and movies with adult content. Political correctness is a form of big government as well.

Big government is government that tries to do too much for the people and do for the people that they can do for themselves and do better for themselves. Like deciding where to send their kids to school and how to educate them. Where to get their health care and health insurance. How to plan their retirement and manage their money, including investing their money or even gambling their money. Government outlawing consensual sexual conduct where money even is exchanged like anti-prostitution laws, to me at least as a Liberal ( Classical Liberal if you prefer ) are big government laws and anti-free choice laws.

What Charles Krauthammer, was talking about here in this video when he was talking about big government like the Great Society are public safety net programs. Social insurance programs that are only there for people who are low-income and don't outlaw any private economic or personal activity, aren't big government laws or programs, but social insurance programs for people who are low-income. These laws don't make anything illegal or even make any form of consensual activity illegal, but give financial assistance to people who are in poverty even if they're also working.

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing Nadine Strossen- Free Speech & Personal Liberty

Source: The Rubin Report- Former ACLU President Nadine Strossen -
Source: The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing Nadine Strossen- Free Speech & Personal Liberty

This debate about liberty versus equality as if that is a real choice which it isn't and I'll get into that later, reminds me of a speech that longtime Chicago University Economics Professor Milton Friedman, who described his own politics as liberal ( or classical liberal if you prefer ) gave a speech in 1978 and he talked about liberty in equality in the same speech and made the point to put it simply that you can't have one without the other.
Source: The Rubin Report- Former ACLU President Nadine Strossen
That without liberty and the ability for people make their own decisions and go as far as they can go on their own and make as good a life that they can for themselves, you can't have equality at least in the sense that most if not all people want equality which is that everyone living and doing well in society and not being denied access in life simply because of their race, ethnicity, or gender. Sure! You could essentially outlaw wealth and have the central government collect most of the wealth in society and then try to spread that wealth back to the people based on what they believe people need to do well.
Source: Conservative Video News- Dave Rubin & Nadine Strossen
But when you discourage people to do well and be successful you get a lot less of it, because people will expect the government to take care of them, or they'll believe it's not worth it to be free and successful in life because government will just punish then for that by taking most of their wealth from them. Or you could have government just outlaw individual initiative and creativity and just have government try to run the economy for everyone like you would see in a Marxist-Communist state and have a country where everyone is poor like in North Korea and a society where only people with government jobs and connections are able to live well.

But when people talk about equality, they tend to talk about it in a sense where everyone is able to live well. Not where everyone is equally poor, but where people are able to succeed in life and live well. And for true equality to occur you have to have good deal of personal liberty and the freedom for people to do well and be able to make their own decisions in life and then be able to collect the rewards from their success. Which comes with investments, risk taking, and even failures.

As far as the main point of Nadine Strossen's book ( former President of the ACLU ) a woman that I have a lot of respect for and who I love politically for her liberal politics, she's just damn right about this. You way to counter hate speech is not trying to shut it up through force, but by counteracting it through intelligent free speech. Make the case for why some hateful asshole is exactly that and why what they believe is hateful.

But when the First Amendment was written, our Founding Fathers ( the Founding Liberals ) didn't have in mind protecting the rights for intelligent Ivy Leaguers to say whatever they want and have the freedom to say as many intelligent things as possible. Even though the First Amendment protects intelligent speech and love as much as hate speech.

The First Amendment was written for people who think outside of the box and say controversial things. Even to the point that they're not just criticizing people, but saying things that can be hurtful. And even saying things that are hateful, but just plain wrong like labeling an entire ethnic or racial group as criminals, invaders, rapists, etc. And perhaps you're familiar with a certain national politician who has done those things in the last few years.

I can't end this piece without talking about personal liberty here as well since that it part of the title of the piece. There is so such thing as freedom without personal liberty. Not just talking about economic freedom which is also critical in any liberal democratic free society, but also the freedom for people to think and say what they want short of inciting violence and falsely accusing people, or harassing people. But the freedom for people to make their own personal and private decisions and live their own lives and do what they want to do, short of hurting innocent people with what they're doing. Freedom of choice and the right to privacy which I believe as a non-lawyer protects freedom of choice in America and engage in activities that some religious folks might see as immoral, is just as important as our economic freedom and right to free speech.

Monday, July 9, 2018

Thames TV: Looks Familiar With Denis Norden- Diana Dors, Larry Grayson & Farley Granger: From 1982

Source: Thames TV- Farley Granger, Larry Grayson & Diana Dors, in 1982-
Source: Thames TV: Looks Familiar With Denis Norden- Diana Dors, Larry Grayson & Farley Granger: From 1982

Speaking of Hollywood parties which is what they're talking about here, there was a famous Hollywood party involving Diana Dors and her then husband Dennis Hamilton, who sort of acted as Diana's agent back in the 1950s. Diana Dors and actor Rod Steiger, worked in the Hollywood movie The Unholy Wife from 1956 and her husband Dennis and Teasy-Weasy Raymond ( no joke, that's the real name ) put together a launch party for The Unholy Wife at Raymond's Hollywood home in 1956. A lot of great Hollywood people were there including Doris Day, Lana Turner, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Ginger Rogers, and many others, as well as Diana Dors who was just getting her start in Hollywood.

Source: IOffer- English Muffin Diana Dors, this is your life 
Source: Wikipedia: Diana Dors- In The Unholy Wife

It was very crowded around the pool and Diana and her husband and others, got pushed in the pool. Hamilton not being the ready for prime-time player that he was, the man wasn't even a Hollywood agent and was sort of Hollywood's version of an assistant tennis pro who survived only on his ability to get wealthy women like Diana to help him and take care of him. The man was a career amateur who thought more of himself than he ever was, gets up out of the pool and decks a photographer that was covering this scene. Hamilton and his adorable gorgeous wife Diana, naturally are kicked out of the party and by all intents and purposes are kicked out of Hollywood.
Source: IOffer- English Muffin Diana Dors, this is your life 
But Diana goes back to England and is pretty much never heard from again in Hollywood, which was fine with her but a huge loss for the American movie and entertainment audience that would've loved to have her working her for the next 30 plus years. Because she really was a great entertainer and not just great to look at. A helluva actress, who was very funny and was a very good singer as well, but other than Richard Dawson had a bad habit of marrying men who couldn't take care of themselves and were very needy and lacking in ability and needed her to take care of them.

Who knows, had Diana left her husband with a babysitter and went to the party by herself that night, that scene with her and others getting dumped in the pool accidentally might have still happened, the difference being that Diana was a pro and grownup ( unlike her husband Dennis Hamilton ) and would've handled it professionally and got out of the water and there would've been people there to help her dry off and sent to a bedroom to change and everything else and life would've moved on and perhaps Diana Dors has a great career in Hollywood, instead of a very short but memorable career. But this is one of those things that we;ll just never know.