Gadget

This content is not yet available over encrypted connections.

John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

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

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie Interviewing Judge Andrew Napolitano- ' How Teddy Roosevelt & Woodrow Wilson Destroyed Constitutional Freedom'

Source: Reason Magazine-
Source: Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie Interviewing Judge Andrew Napolitano- ' How Teddy Roosevelt & Woodrow Wilson Destroyed Constitutional Freedom'

Libertarians which is what both Nick Gillespie and Andrew Napolitano are, (not that there's anything wrong with that) understanding of the U.S. Constitution, is very different from every other political faction.

Every political faction in America except the Socialists on the Far-Left and the Christian-Nationalists, Alt-Right racist terrorists on the Far-Right, generally support and believe in the U.S. Constitution. But Conservatives and even Conservative-Libertarians, now believe that government and even the Federal Government, has some role when it comes to the safety net and public welfare in the country. They believe that these programs should be run by the states and local government's and be block granted to them. But Progressives, Liberals, and Conservatives, all now support some role at least for the Federal Government when it comes to the public welfare and a regulatory state.

So course the Andrew Napolitano's of the world are going to disagree with Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and other Progressives, when it comes to the general welfare clause and commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. There Libertarians who believe taxation is theft and don't see America as like a club with hundreds of millions of members that we're all part of and have to pay dues (meaning taxes) in order to keep our membership in that club. So of course Libertarians are going to see Square Deal which gave us the regulatory state in America, the New Deal, which gave us the safety net in America, and the Great Society, which expanded the safety net in America, of course Libertarians are going to see these programs and agendas as unconstitutional.




Friday, November 17, 2017

The Independent Institute: P.J. O'Rourke- The Outlook: How Things Look From Here

Source: The Independent Institute-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

What Socialists don't like about Libertarians and libertarianism, is that Libertarians have this inane idea (according to Socialists) that people should be allowed to make a good living and then be able to live off of those rewards. The fruits of their labor, to sound like a cheeseball.

What the Christian-Right and now Christian-Nationalists (who voted for Donald Trump) don't like about Libertarians and libertarianism is that Libertarians have this crazy idea (according to the Christian-Right) that people have property rights and that extends to their homes and their bodies. And that people should be able to live their own lives as they see fit, short of hurting innocent people. Even if that offends the religious and moral values of the Christian-Right.

What I don't like about the Libertarian-Right, well their a few things and I guess I could name them all. But they claim to be against big government and government interference and yet they tend to sound more like they're anti-government all together. That they see America as some deserted island where there's almost no evidence of life and all of these people show up all the sudden and over the years and create a new society short of having any government.

The so-called Anarcho-Libertarians, seem to believe that arresting suspects as part of a criminal investigation, is somehow a form of kidnapping. That if someone wrongs you its up to that person to get justice for themselves. Instead of relying on a law enforcement department to handle that for you. Because if we have public law enforcement and government, that would require taxes to fund those agencies. That putting convicted murderers, to use as an example who are actually guilty of murdering the people they were convicted for, that putting them in prison for their crimes, somehow violated the murderer's rights. Someone who believes that comes from another planet and perhaps is just on Earth for a visit. Perhaps to see what the real world looks like.

Conservative-Libertarians like the Barry Goldwater's from back in the day, Senator Rand Paul and a few others in Congress today, P.J. O'Rourke, those Libertarians I can respect, because they're not Anarchists, but Libertarians. They want a government limited to only doing for the people what we can't do for ourselves. And not messing around in other countries affairs. And also they sound like sane intelligent people who base their politics from this crazy word called reason. And not sounding like escaped mental patients, who've been on nothing but marijuana and alcohol, since they fled from the institution.

And I could also talk about how conspiratorial Libertarians tend to be and how they resemble the Socialist-Left in America and how dovish they are and blaming Lyndon Johnson for the JFK assassination. Libertarians are supposed to hate Socialists and socialism, and yet they sleep in the same bed at the same time with Socialists when arguing about all of these conspiracy theories. Like the JFK assassination, but arguing that 9/11 was an inside job and I could go on. Just look at Alex Jones website if you want more.

Or the antisemitism and even racism that Libertarians have expressed against non-Europeans in America and how now a faction of the Libertarian-Right is now part of the Alt-Right. The Stefan Molyneaux's and others who claim to be Libertarians, but have argued that immigration is somehow a threat to the European-American culture. As well as some Libertarians arguing at least in the past and again something they have in common with the Socialist-Left in America and people like socialist author and writer Noam Chomsky, that America is largest terrorist state in the world and perhaps the only international terrorist organization in the world.

As a Liberal I'm all about (to use a cliche from the 2000s) getting and keeping big government out of my wallets and bedroom. The whole notion of being an adult (who is not currently incarcerated) is that you get to make your own personal and economic decisions, but then have to deal with the consequences of our actions. We don't need a national, or even state, or local, religious leader or nanny statist, babysitting free adults.

So again, I respect the Rand Paul's Jeff Flake's, Ron Johnson's, Justin Amash's, and others in Congress. These are all Republicans by the way in the Senate and House. But the Alt-Right that is part of the Libertarian-Right and the anarcho wing of the Libertarian-Right, they can sound just as crazy as the Socialist-Left. Perhaps as if they did time with them in an institution. And when the crazies become the faces of your movement, your movement loses credibility and the ability to be taken seriously in American politics.
The Independent Institute: P.J. O'Rourke- The Outlook: How Things Look From Here

Thursday, November 16, 2017

Daniel Mitchell: An Anniversary of Communism- 100 Years of Communism

Source: Daniel Mitchell-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

Communism- where do I start and how to talk about this? How about what I hate about it and why it simply doesn’t work at least in the sense that it makes things better for society than that country was before. I guess you could start with the pure over centralization of it. This idea that if you give one government authority the power over everyone else in the country even in a huge country like China or Russia, or a midsize country like North Korea, or a small country like Cuba, even to serve the people that Communists claim they want to serve, that everything will better for everyone else. We have a 100 years of experience now to show that simply doesn’t work.

People can point to the People’s Republic of China all they want, but the Chinese economy didn’t take off until they brought in capitalism or what they call state capitalism and gave their people freedom to manage their own economic affairs and decide for themselves where to work, where to live, and to even be able to start their own companies or buy former state-owned companies in China. And yes, China is still a communist state at it relates to the lack of personal and political freedom there, or that they don’t have any private media and information in that country. But Marxist economics clearly failed in China. Pre-1980 China was a gigantic North Korea as far as their economy. One of the poorest countries in the world.

If you can stomach the lack of economic and personal freedom that results in a communist state, like you just ate three meals a days in jail or prison for a month straight and somehow managed to hold all of that garbage down (I hope your’e not eating right now) how about we get to how insulting of a political philosophy it is. According to Communists Karl Marx is God or their cult leader and everyone else are a bunch of morons who can barely spell their names and struggle just to tie their shoes or take two steps forward without tripping over their own feet. Communists believe the world is simply too complicated for the average person which is most of the people in any country regardless of the size and wealth of the country. And you need Big Government to make everyone’s personal and economic decisions for them.

With any other generation other than the Millennial Generation, I might be saying something like, “for the life of me, I don’t understand why Millennial’s seem to respect if not like Communists and communism and perhaps Socialists and socialism in general.” Especially if I was in a Jimmy Stewart dog gone it what’s going on with young people kind of mood. But we’re talking about a generation that doesn’t even respect history, let alone is knowledgable about it and believes that Hollywood wasn’t created until 2000. And perhaps has never even heard of the Soviet Union. And looks at everything that happened before they were born as, “so old school” and therefor not worth their time learning about.

We’re also talking about a generation that values pop culture and one’s style and attitude, over their substance and what they bring to the table as far as knowledge and professional qualifications. So they look up to people like Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Socialists from the 1960s and 70s like Tom Hayden and many others, that were part of the New-Left movement then, because they were antiestablishment. Who smoked cigars, wore long hair, including beards, wore berets, and talked in this language that makes them sound like they’re high or something. So these people are considered cool or awesome to them, even if they’re responsible for murdering people even in the name of some violent revolution to take down what they see as a corrupt and racist system.

But for every American who grew up at least in some point during the Cold War and remembers hearing about the Soviet Union and Russians leaders like Mikhail Gorbachev and remember hearing about these things and people as kids, who were born before lets say 1980, Americans who weren’t part of the 1960s New-Left socialist movement know how bad communism is. And the horrible consequences that have come from this overly statist collectivist philosophy. That always puts the concerns of the regime and the ideas of Karl Marx, over what’s good for the people and the people themselves. That treats people like they’re mental patients or mentally retarded and living in institutions, because they’re not competent enough to make thee most basic of decisions for themselves.
Source: CRTV: Matt Kibbe- 100 Bloody Years of Communism

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Saturday Night Live: Roy Moore & Jeff Sessions Cold Open

Source: SNL-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Of course there are perhaps millions of reasons why Alabama is considered a backwards stuck in the 1850s, let alone 1950s state that perhaps only Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the other gulf states could be proud of.

Like people being selfish when it comes to their names and feeling the need to have two first names instead of just one. Jim or Bob, is not good enough for a lot of Alabamans so they combine the two and call themselves Jim Bob. Elizabeth or Susan, not good enough for a lot of women in Alabama, so they go by Betty Sue.

Fundamentalist religious beliefs that don't come from anywhere in the Bible at least, but a lot of Alabamans put their faith and fundamentalism over annoying little things like facts, reason, and science.

Alabaman cousins falling in love with each other.

People going to the University of Alabama not because they believe its a great university, but because they want to play football in the NFL and be part of a great football program.

Low literacy rates, high poverty, lack of infrastructure and education. But what do you expect when you put your religious fundamentalism or what Roy Moore calls God's Law, over education and facts.

But if there was just one reason and I just named five for why even Southern states like Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, look at Alabama as if it was an embarrassment and joke. Like that next door neighbor who mows his lawn naked, or has a Nazi flag hanging from their house who has Jewish and African-American neighbors. Its how Alabamans are seen at least when it comes to male and female relations. What men in Alabama seem to believe they can get away with or is completely acceptable when it comes to how they treat women and even girls.

A 14 year old girl, is obviously not a woman. Even in Alabama legal consent is 16, even though most of the rest of the country legal consent is 18. But, again we're talking about Alabama. And if you're not from the Bible Belt talking about Alabama can be like talking about Afghanistan. Some far away country that is very backwards, at least compared with the Western developed world.

In almost every other state in the Union except for perhaps Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Carolina, West Virginia, and perhaps Texas, at least in the deep rural parts of that huge state, Roy Moore wouldn't be considered a joke or an embarrassment. Perhaps that would be like complement compared with what he really is. He would be considered a disgrace. Women outside of the Bible Belt, wouldn't have waited 35-40 years to speak out about what Roy Moore did to them when they were girls. Because they wouldn't worry about the backlash that could have come from speaking out against this fundamentalist redneck who calls himself a Christian, and yet he has very anti-Christian beliefs. And is more of a religious theocrat with no real religion backing what he believes.

About a month from now we're going to see if Alabama is ready to join the 21st Century. Because they missed out on a lot of the 20th Century, at least the positive aspects of it and reject this neanderthal who calls himself a Christian and say that Alabama also believes that pedophilia, child molestation, and sexual harassment, are wrong. And they don't want anyone like Roy Moore representing then anywhere in Congress, especially in the Senate, but the House as well. And hopefully they'll overwhelmingly reject him. Even if that means having a Democrat who doesn't have the sexual baggage as their next U.S. Senator.
Saturday Night Live: Roy Moore & Jeff Sessions Cold Open

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Democratic Socialist: Classical Liberalism and Fascism

Source: Democratic Socialist-
Source: Democratic Socialist: Classical Liberalism and Fascism

According to Wikipedia: "Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I before it spread to other European countries. Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum."

To put it simply Fascists believe that their beliefs and values are so superior to anyone else's, that people who disagree with them, their beliefs and values are not worthy of being considered and perhaps those people don't have a right to even exist. Fascists believe that any opposition to what they believe should not be allowed to exist. Generally one of the first things that authoritarians do when they come to power in a country is attempt to completely shut down the political opposition and put them in prison, if not just murder the opposition. And then they shut down any private media organizations that disagree with their regime and report negative information about the authoritarian regime. Noticed, I haven't labeled Fascists as right-wing or left-wing.

The only governing philosophy that fascism is about is complete destruction of any possible opposition to what the party in power believes in. And for Fascists who aren't in power but would like to come to power, they believe opposition movements to what they believe in and advocate, don't have the same rights to exists, speak, and believe, that they do.

Communism is a governing philosophy.

Democratic socialism/social democracy, is a governing philosophy.

Libertarianism is a governing philosophy.

Religious theocracy or religious nationalism, whether its Christian or Muslim, are governing philosophies.

And then go to the Center-Left with progressivism which is a governing philosophy.

Liberalism is a governing philosophy.

Conservatism/conservative-libertarianism, is a governing philosophy.

But Fascists, similar to Nationalists who are also Fascists, are on both the Far-Left and Far-Right, both in North America and Europe.

Communists who are on the Far-Left, don't believe political opposition to what they believe and advocate, have a right to even exist let alone speak out. Right-wing Nationalists who are cultural Marxists and Christian-Nationalists on the Far-Right and ethno-Nationalists like the KKK and Neo-Nazis, on the extreme Far-Right, believe that opposition to what they believe don't have a right to even exist, let alone speak out.

Now liberalism according to Wikipedia:

"Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.  Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation.

Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property, while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law."

In other words Liberals believe in individual rights, as well as liberty and equality. Some of those individual rights are obviously Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion, as well as Freedom of Assembly. Property rights and the Right to Privacy. Communists and even Democratic Socialists, tend to oppose most if not all of these liberal values which are reasons why they're not Liberals, but Communists and Socialists. Communists don't believe in democracy because they see it as a  threat to their regime and absolute power over society, even to serve the people. Democratic Socialists believe in democracy and even in the right for non-Socialists and even right-wingers to exist. But promote the human welfare and total economic equality, over property rights and individual freedom, both economic as well as personal freedom.

This is an important debate and discussion and debate especially in a time like now and in a country like America where political literacy (for lack of a better term) meaning knowledge of different political philosophies, are so low. Where people get labeled as Liberals by the media and by themselves even though they don't believe in Freedom of Speech, at least for people who disagree with them., don't believe in property rights, and in many cases don't even believe in personal freedom. And yet they get labeled as Liberals even though consistently promote illiberal values over liberal values and have illiberal tendencies instead of liberal tendencies.

Monday, November 13, 2017

The Washington Post: Todd Townsend & Carol Cordon Bleu- What if Hillary Clinton Had Won?: Department of Satire

Source: The Washington Post-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Imagine a President Hillary Clinton if you can just for a minute and especially considering the current President of the United States., that shouldn't be too scary.

Millions of men who are on the Alt-Right and the Nationalist -Right in America, would be protesting daily about what they see as a radical feminist Communist in the White House, who seeks to eliminate all forms of masculinity and manhood. And transform all the wealth from Caucasian-Americans, to all racial and ethnic minorities in the country.

Fox News with a daily as well as 24 hours not so special coverage about what they call the criminal in the White House and her attempts to destroy what they call their traditional America.

Had Hillary Clinton won the presidency, Republicans would probably still control the House, but there'a a reasonable chance that Democrats could have won back the Senate, because there would've been a higher Democratic turnout in states like Pennsylvania and Florida. And perhaps Democrats would have won the Senate even if there was a 50-50 split. And we would see House Republicans launching new investigations in to the lives of the Bill and Hillary Clinton. Making the Ken Starr investigation from the 1990s look like not just a fishing expedition, but fishing festival. Wait, the Ken Starr investigation was a fishing expedition.

Perhaps the Christian-Right leaves America and goes to Saudi Arabia or Iran, where its still okay and acceptable to treat girls and women like property. Since they'll no longer be able to do that with a Clinton Administration in America. Judge Roy Moore would be one of the first so-called Christian-Conservatives packing his bags and out on the first flight to Riyadh or Tehran.

We'll never know this for sure, but we do know that you still have a large Donald Trump base in the Republican Party who views President Trump as their cult leader. And won't criticize anything that Trump does including not paying his taxes, because Donald Trump is their cult leader. And if he does something it must be okay to them because he did it. And no godlike cult leader can ever be wrong according to them. But without a Donald Trump, these Republicans would return back to Planet Earth at least even if its just for a visit, to stop at all costs Hillary Clinton from doing her job as President of the United States had she won in 2016 and try to prevent her from finishing her first term.
The Washington Post: Todd Townsend & Carol Cordon Bleu- What if Hillary Clinton Had Won?: Department of Satire

Saturday, November 11, 2017

HBO: Last Week Tonight With John Oliver- Economic Development

Source: Last Week Tonight-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I get that John Oliver don't like corporate welfare and neither do I and perhaps views any tax incentives as private business and individuals steeling government's money. (As Socialists would argue) As if government has any of their own money. The old phrase that money doesn't grow on trees is particularly app when talking about government. Even when government prints money (which is government creating money out of thin air) they need to actually print the bills with a printing machine. Instead of planting paper in the ground and hoping it eventually grows on trees.

If this is about pork barrel spending, then I agree with Oliver on that as well. Tax dollars that are purely designed for politicians to be able to pay off their political debts to their contributors and creates no economic benefit for the constituents that they represent. Which is nothing more than a form of legal bribery in America whether its done from Congress, or at the state and local levels.

The reason why people stay in Congress for so so long, well their several reasons. They represent people who don't have enough time to research incumbents and candidates, because they're too busy staring at their i-phones and watching reality TV. Which of course is really important in life, not like trying to figure out where their hard-earned tax dollars go whether its for pork or for anything else.

But also people stay in Congress both in the House and Senate for so long because they get fat from pork. And are too fat to move out of Capitol Hill and actually get a real job. And as long as voters don't do their homework on people that are supposed to represent them and people who want to replace their porky Representative's and Senator's, we're going to see tax funded scandals like this. Money to companies that only get tax funded subsidies because they knew who in government to call and to payoff.

That fact is if you want jobs and you want Welfare even and a broader welfare state all together, which is the pot fantasy of a lifetime for Socialists in America, you need what John Oliver was talking about the beginning of his rant which are jobs. You want businesses investing in your communities and they need incentive to locate there. They need a workforce that is actually qualified to do the jobs that will be there. I know, that sounds crazy having people qualified for the jobs that they're supposed to do.

But you also need regulations that are easy to understand and actually make sense, are actually needed, and don't make doing business in your community too expensive. I know, more commonsense, I guess I'm just old fashioned that way. Otherwise we won't have a society where everyone is on Welfare and that socialist dream will never come because again money doesn't grow on trees, not even government money. (Sorry Bernie Sanders supporters) But instead a society where everyone is homeless or looking for an affordable place to live because no one has a job. Because taxes are too high and regulations are so strict that government is practically running what are supposed to be private businesses.
HBO: Last Week Tonight With John Oliver- Economic Development

Friday, November 10, 2017

Politics & Prose: Mark Bray- ANTIFA: The Anti-Fascist Handbook

Source: Politics & Prose-
Source: Politics & Prose: Mark Bray- ANTIFA: The Anti-Fascist Handbook

If you're going to label yourself anti-fascists, then at the very least that means you're implying that you're fascists. That you don't believe in fascism and that you believe in free speech and freedom of thought. That people who disagree with you and even have beliefs that may offend you, have the same right to believe what they believe and say what they want, as people you respect and agree with. People that you consider to be political allies. And that you're not going to try shut up speech and speakers, simply because you disagree with them, or are even offended by them.

If ANTIFA really were ant-fascists and opposed not just Nationalists, but Christian-Nationalists, Christian-Theocrats, Neo-Nazis, all on the Far-Right, but Communists and other Socialists on the Far-Left, who don't believe people who they disagree with and are offended by have the same right to speak and believe that they do, but believed these political factions have the same right to free speech as people that agree with them meaning ANTIFA, then I could probably respect them. As a Liberal I love free speech and probably would even consider myself to be a free speech fundamentalist. But not just for people who share my liberal democratic values. But for people who are way to left of me like Communists who are part of ANTIFA and people who are to the right me. Conservative-Libertarians on the Center-Right and Christian-Nationalists and Neo-Nazis on the Far-Right.

But that is not what ANTIFA is about. They call themselves anti-fascists even though they believe in fascism and to use fascism to shut up Far-Right speakers and political activists, that they don't like, disagree with, and are even offended by. ANTIFA are hypocrites at best. They are like so-called Conservatives who claim to hate big government, but are only talking about big government as it relates to taxes, spending, centralization, that has to do with the economy. But leave out that they actually want big government in people's personal lives. And tell people what they can and can't do in their homes and want consensual activities between adults should be legal or not. ANTIFA believes in using fascism to shut down and eliminate what they call fascism. So a more accurate name for this group would be ANTIFA-INO. Anti-Fascists In Name Only, because that is what they are.

Thursday, November 9, 2017

The American Spectator: Jeffrey Lord- My Real Time With Bill Maher

Source: The American Spectator-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I don't know what Donald Trump is paying Jeffrey Lord and even if he was paying Lord, he actually wouldn't be paying him and instead of raise the money from other people and use that to pay Lord or just ask one of bis friends to pay Lord, but whatever President Trump might be paying Mr. Lord is simply not enough. Lord who has go more than way out of his way to defend Trump. Going out of his way to defend Trump is a huge understatement. It would be like saying America had a civil war because the South didn't want a bearded President. Not just false but doesn't make any sense.

Jeff Lord has risked his personal and perhaps professional reputation to defend a man who has made a career of screwing people for his own benefit. Who apparently can't be left alone with women who don't him well because of what he might do to them. A man in Donald Trump who pre-2010 was a Democrat and a Liberal Democrat at that. A man who is a proud New Yorker and didn't consider himself very religious at all until he became the leader of the Birther Nationalist Tea Party movement in 2011, is now the darling of the Tea Party Nationalists in America.

Tea Party Nationalists can't believe anything that is negative that is reported about their cult leader (Donald Trump) even if its reported by the conservative Wall Street Journal or even propaganda agency of the Trump Administration. (Better known as Fox News) Who can't believe Barack Obama is not only an American citizen, but actually born in America, even though he has a Hawaii birth certificate. 9/'11 was an inside job, the Russian investigation is a hoax even though every single U.S. national security and intelligence agency believes that Russia interfered into our elections in 2016. Including every single national security and intelligence official that President Trump appointed himself.

In other words, the Trump movement or Tea Party Nationalists, (as I prefer to call them) or how about the Trumpian Cult or the Cult of Trump, can't believe or won't acknowledge (at leas in public) facts that are right front of their own eyes or ears, if it is negative about Donald Trump. And this is the man that Jeff Lord who once worked in the Reagan White House as a speechwriter and pre-2016 or so had a great reputation as an intelligent, honest, very friendly man and part of the Center-Right in the Republican Party, now represents and speaks for. Who worked for CNN as a political analyst even though several CNN anchors had a hard time with him because they weren't sure if Lord actually believed what he was saying with some of his defenses for Donald Trump.

Jeff Lord has gone from being a Bill Buckley or Bill Kristol of right-wing political analysts. Someone who is respected on both sides and by most people in the country who follow politics and current affairs, because they're honest, intelligent, make their arguments based on this old fashion word called facts. And don't defend people just because they're on their side of the isle, to being an Alex Jones/Pat Robertson type conspiracy theorist. Who blame 9/11 on homosexuality, or blame lesbianism for feminism. "Russia didn't interfere into our elections! It was China because they wanted radical feminist Hillary Clinton to be President. Or it was an inside job inside the Democratic Party."

And my only question is for what. Why would an intelligent man risk his reputation as a serious political analyst to do that. He doesn't even work for Donald Trump officially and has been part of the Trump Organization in any capacity.
Source: HBO: Real Time With Bill Maher- Jeffrey Lord Interview

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Sargon of Akkad: Communists At Berkeley

Source: Sargon of Akkad-
Source: Sargon of Akkad: Communists At Berkeley

The main woman in this video said the according to her the free speech movement at Berkeley from the 1960s, which really was a free speech movement and something that Berkeley has moved away from, this woman said that was the real free speech movement, because of what they were speaking against. Which is what's called white supremacy and the authoritarian establishment back then at Berkeley that tried to censor cultural and speech movements that they disagreed with. In other words, if its speech that she agrees with, then its free speech. But if she disagrees with the free speech, then its fascism according to her and therefor it doesn't deserved to be heard. Should be silenced and those people should not be be allowed to exist and should be forcefully removed if necessary.

ANTIFA if they really were an anti-fascist movement, then I could probably respect them. But they're instead a hypocritical contradiction of a movement. They claim to be against fascism on the one hand, while on the other hand they try to shut up and stop speech that they simply disagree with and are even offended by it. Which is basically the definition of fascism. Preventing speakers that you disagree with from speaking and trying to physically stop if necessary speakers that you don't like and disagree with from speaking. ANTIFA are not anti-fascists, but Neo-Communists if not just pure Communists, who want to destroy the American system and form of government and replace it with a socialist state by any means necessary as the woman in the video proudly stated.

Tuesday, November 7, 2017

The Rubin Report: David Rubin Interviewing Laura Kipnis- Feminism Has Been Hijacked by Melodrama

Source: The Rubin Report-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

At risk of sounding flip here (which I risk almost all the time) I don't consider myself a Feminist, because I'm a man. I don't believe you have to be a Feminist to believe that men and women should be treated equally under law and in the private sector and not be punished or rewarded simply because of their gender. I don't believe you have to be a Feminist to believe in equal rights or equal opportunity. Being a Liberal or just a good intelligent person, is all you have to be to believe in equal opportunity. I'm a Liberal, I believe in liberty and equal rights for all. Men and women, of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. So feminism and equal opportunity to me, aren't controversial, but commonsense.

Feminism is not controversial, but what's called radical feminism or what I prefer to call feminine supremacy, this idea that women are simply better than men and therefor women shouldn't be treated worst or equal than men, but better than men and if you don't believe in this you're a women-hating Fascist, this philosophy on the Far-Left in America is obviously very controversial. This idea that men, (well, straight men) are over masculine animals simply looking to conquer women. And that masculinity in itself is a bad thing (unless you're a man-hating dyke Lesbian, or just a Lesbian)  and the reason for all the problems in America and in the world, are because of men and especially Caucasian men especially in America.

So-called radical feminists or what I call feminine supremacists, hate everything that is masculine. They see straight men and straight activities like football, (just to use as an example) as promoting violence in America especially against women. What feminine supremacists don't seem to understand (and this is just one example) is that maybe 1/2 American football fans are women. You watch an NFL or college football game on TV or go to one and just about every other fan there and some games are women. So I guess a lot of women in America and probably most of them believe in feminism, (not including Ann Coulter) again that men and women should be treated equally, but most American women missed the last train on feminine supremacy and don't view men and masculinity in general, as some dangerous narcotic that must be wiped out in order to save society.

I know this is a Hollywood movie and everything, but if you are familiar with the 1970 social satire comedy Myra Breckinridge, Raquel Welch plays Myra a former queen Gay man who becomes a woman and not just a women, but what would be called today a radical feminist or what I call a feminine supremacist that saw her job as eliminating everything that is straight and masculine about men. Other than maybe the physical romantic relationships between straight men and women. Myra Breckinridge bombed as badly as a heavy metal concert in Harlem, or a country music festival in Compton, (not that it was a bad movie) but that movie perhaps has served for the 3-5 feminist supremacists who saw the movie as an inspiration for their feminist-supremacist movement in America.

Laura Kinpis described her politics as back in the day at least as a Marxist-Feminist. Well, that makes sense if you look at what's called radical feminism and what I call feminine-supremacy today. You're either totally in agreement with them, or you're part of the enemy and deserved to be destroyed. And have someone on Twitter who stalks you and has a nasty reply to everything that you tweet. Maybe if someone of these female-supremacists got a job and went to work, they would have less time for Twitter and our unemployment rate would go down even further.

Apparently Laura Kinpis has moderated from Marxist to just being a mainstream Socialist-Feminist, who believes in equality and complete redistribution, but not supremacy. Which goes to show you that there's hope for all radicals in America. If they just cut back on their caffeine intake, try to find hobbies outside of social media and looking at every radical article that is published and do this old fashion thing of thinking for yourself and looking at the world for how it really is and what people really believe. Instead of what the latest hot political celebrity is telling them as some type of God and viewing every word that person says as the golden truth who can never be wrong about anything.
The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing Laura Kipnis- Feminism Has Been Hijacked by Melodrama

Monday, November 6, 2017

The New Republic: Opinion- Clint Smith: Affirmative Action as Reparations

Source: The New Republic-
Source: The New Republic: Opinion- Clint Smith: Affirmative Action as Reparations

The main reason why I oppose affirmative action at least in the sense of reward any American or Americans based on race, ethnicity, or gender, is because I have this old and I guess what young Millennial's who love socialism and would find corny Martin Luther King notion of judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. If you want a race, ethnicity, and gender blind society, then that has to start at the top and with government.

You can't have government preach about the dangers of racism and other bigotry when on the other hand its subsidizing racism and bigotry. Denying people access in America simply because of their race, ethnicity, or gender, is bigotry. Even if you're doing it to help people that you believe are disadvantage perhaps even to the point that they're not good enough to make it on their own.

Which is what affirmative action is basically saying to African and Latin-Americans. That we meaning Uncle Sam, believe that you (African and Latin-Americans) not good enough to compete with European and Asian-Americans, so as a result we're going to give you an extra head start and allow for you to go to college and get other jobs at the expense of European and Asian-Americans in the name of diversity. And at the same time tell European and Asian-Americans that their too many of them here right now. They're too successful and because of that they're not welcome to work here or go to school here.

What proponents of affirmative action don't seem to understand is that affirmative action is not bigoted towards just European-Americans, but everyone else. Asian, African, and Latin-Americans. Affirmative action tells European-Americans that there too many of them here and that since their families have benefited from racism against African-Americans in the past including slavery, government is now going to punish Europeans for the evils of their ancestors.

Asian-Americans lose access to college because Asians do very well in America when it comes education and everything else and as a result a lot of them are qualified to go to college and get good jobs. Except for one qualification which is that they happen to be from the wrong race. And as a result too many of them according to big government go to this school or that one and as a result that school is telling them that they can't take any more Asians at this point.

Affirmative action tells African and Latin-Americans that they're not good enough to compete with their European and Asian counterparts on their own. That they don't come from the right families and aren't raised properly, didn't go to the right schools, and as a result need help from big government to compete against everyone else in America, because they're not good enough on their own.

You want a race, ethnic, gender, and color-blind society in America and I'm only talking about how people are judged and not what we see out of our own eyes, but just how we treat each other and not reward or punish people because of their ancestry, then you only accomplish that by not having policies that reward or punish based on ancestry. No to affirmative action and yes to strong civil rights laws and enforcement.

Punish people economically to the point that it would hurt employers and schools and other organizations when they deny or punish people simply because of their ancestry and be a strong incentive not to reward or punish people base on ethnicity.

And yes to a modern infrastructure and economic development system so every community in America regardless of race and ethnicity can succeed in America. As well as an education system where every American can go to the best school for them and have a real shot at succeeding in America even if they come from low-income parents and not be forced to go to school simply because of where they live.

What makes America exceptional is not our vast economic resources or our military firepower, even those things are great benefits to our country and we don't ever have to worry about another country attacking us and have to take foreign aide from other countries just to survive economically. But what makes us exceptional is our diversity at all levels and all kinds and our individualism. That we're this vast and diverse superpower and giant of a country that represents the whole world in the sense that everyone lives here.

No majority ethnicity and by the 2050 no majority race as well. And we're this country where regardless of your ancestry and how you start out in life you can literally make it in America. You don't see Americans escaping or even trying to escape America to live in another country where they believe they can get a better opportunity at life. We're all equal as Americans and are no better or worst than anyone else simply because of our ancestry.

Which means we can all succeed if just given the opportunity. Getting a good opportunity meaning education early in life and then taking advantage of that. Not because they needed big government to reward them simply because big government believes they have the right complexion or eye shape, hair, of whatever physical features that we inherit from our parents. African and Latin-Americans, don't need big government's help and reward them simply because of their race and ethnicity to succeed in America.

African and Latin-Americans, can accomplish these things on their own if they simply are able to go to good schools growing up and have parents who do everything they can to raise them properly so they can succeed. Because African and Latin-Americans, are just as good as everyone else in America and don't need special treatment and protection from big government.
Source: Rebel Media: Jay Fayza- Why I Hate Affirmative Action and Quotas

Saturday, November 4, 2017

Theodore Roosevelt: Make The Best of Things and Life

Source: The Quotes-
I'm not a big fan at least of the Tremors genre, series of Tremors movies from the 1990s with people like Kevin Bacon, Michael Gross, Fred Ward, and others. But the Tremors Aftershocks movie from 1996 is a very funny movie. Mostly because of Mike Gross, Fred Ward, Chris Gartlin who plays Fred Ward's partner.

And Mike Gross has this line in the movie where he's just nailed a bunch of these creatures that were trying to catch these people in the capital of nowhere in Mexico, with one of his big weapons and he destroys several of them with his big rocket launcher or whatever it was. And his partners come up and congratulate him on that and are very excited. With the Gross character simply just saying, "doing what I can, with what  I got." Now, I don't know if this guy is a big fan of Teddy Roosevelt or not, but that is what TR is saying with this quote.

I believe there are three kinds of people in life and these three character types have other aspects about them as well, but we all fit into one of these three categories.

The doer, the bum, and the bitch. And I don't mean bitch in the sense of female dog, but someone who is always complaining and seems to be happier when they have something to complain about instead of something positive that is positive about them.

The doer is Teddy Roosevelt. This is the situation, this is what can be done about it and this is what needs to be done about it. And then makes the best with it with what they have to work with.

The bum, is always stuck in neutral, perhaps too afraid to take any risks and as a result doesn't move forward or backwards, because they never take any risks and make any investments with their time, energy, and other resources that they may have. The bum is sort of the opposite of a Progressive like TR, or a Regressive. The bum doesn't progress or even conserves, they just stay where they are. At least Conservatives like Barry Goldwater and Robert Taft, conserve and protect what they cherish and value. The bum doesn't even do that, because they believe if they try to protect and conserve what they have, that will require effort and risk and might lose everything as a result.

The bitch is always in a bad mood. On a July Fourth parade, they'll spot the only cloud in the sky on a hot 90-95 degree day and that cloud will turn into a hurricane of rain. Their team wins the Super Bowl and they'll complain about the six penalties and two turnovers that their team committed and just focus on that. And actually get no satisfaction from actually winning the Super Bowl. Imagine having a bitch as a Boston Red Sox fan in 2004 when they Red Sox won their first World Series since 1918. Instead of focusing on the fact that the Red Sox just won their first World Series since 1918, when Teddy Roosevelt still had some political power, the bitch wonders why the Red Sox were down 3-0 to the New York Yankees in the ALCS and just focuses on that instead. How would you like to have a bitch as your campaign manager on Election Night and you'r supposed to be ahead by 10 points in the polls.

Life is exactly that and when you over promise or think things are better than they are, you only set yourself up for big disappointments. Because you stop doing your homework and the work that you did that got you to the point where you are. And on the other side if you always believe things are worst than they are, they always will be at least to you. And you won't do the work and put in the effort to make things as good as possible for yourself and the people you care about, because you'll believe what's the point. Life sucks in your ant size mind. And the person stuck in neural will only go as far in life as car stuck in neutral or that is out of gas. Because they won't make any real investments and take risks. That old saying you only get out of life what you put into it.

But the doer is a realist and always has the best available information around them and knows what to do with it which is why they're successful. The doer knows how much money they have and exactly what they can get out of that money, because they know what they need and who much everything costs and spends their money based on those factors. But also knows how to advance their wealth both financially and personally, because again they always have the best available information and made themselves into the best person that they can be. They're doers, they're Progressives, they progress and move forward in life.

 Life is not fair or unfair, generally and even if people have screwed you, you always have the opportunity and ability to recover from that and even move forward. But only if you progress and make the best out of your situation in life and the best out of yourself. Instead of waiting for positive things to happen to you, or not having the balls frankly to take any risks in life. Life is about risk versus reward and calculating those things together to see where you can go. Not sitting around and waiting for things to happen. Or living in a cloud because you think life is too tough.
Source: Daily Quotes: Theodore Roosevelt- Top 21 Quotes

Friday, November 3, 2017

A&E: Naomi Ekperigin- Infamous Killers: David Berkowitz- The Son of Sam

Source: A&E-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I doubt I'm the only person who has done this but for the last 10-20 years or so but I've been wondering why a somewhat normal seeming man like David Berkowitz would decide to go out and simply murder people in New York City or anywhere else. Not to look for justification for those murders and of course there are no justifiable murders. Murder by definition- the intentional taking of innocent human life by definition is a crime. The worst crime you could commit against anyone. Calling a murder justifiable would be like calling a cheeseburger a hot dog, a slice of pizza a peanut butter sandwich. Its simply not believable on its face.

But I've been wanting to know why would a somewhat innocent looking and normal intelligent man who had a good job and was able to support himself even if he was somewhat lonely and isolated, why would this person go out and decide to murder as many 10-20 innocent people and perhaps more. What would drive a normal productive man to go out and murder all of those innocent people for no apparent reason and why after being found sane and able to stand trial for his murders how would a serial murderer like David Berkowitz (the self-proclaim Son of Sam) avoid the death penalty. The death penalty is for people who murder multiple people and get some pleasure from that.

Again, this doesn't justify what David Berkowitz did and I' not anti-military or even anti-war, but David Berkowitz joined the U.S. Army right after high school in the early 1970s and discovered early on that he was very good with guns. He wasn't even in the Vietnam War but instead was sent to South Korea to join the forces there that was protecting the South from Communist North Korea. I believe Berkowitz discovered that he was good with guns and good at shooting people and perhaps even discovered that he enjoyed doing it. He gets an honorable discharge from the U.S. Army in 1974 and comes back to New York City where he grew up in the 1950s and 1960s and discovers that he's alone and doesn't fit in where he grew up.

What the Son of Sam means to me and I'm obviously not David Berkowitz's biographer, is that he saw himself as the Son of Uncle Sam. This mythical character that is supposed to represent the U.S. Government and generally what most people believe and I'm one of them, represents what big government looks like in America. Americans who hate high taxes and over centralization of government, the War on Drugs, invasion of privacy, to use as examples. Not to say that Berkowitz hates big government, but I believe he saw it as his duty and was trained to murder people on the behalf of Uncle Sam as what he called himself The Son of Sam. Which is my little theory of why David Berkowitz did what he did.
A&E: Naomi Ekperigin- Infamous Killers: David Berkowitz- The Son of Sam

Thursday, November 2, 2017

NBC News: Opinion- Evan McMullin: Donald Trump's Rise To Power Proves How Dangerous Populism is To Democracy

Source: NBC News-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

If I look at Donald Trump’s rise to power completely honestly and objectively and not as a partisan Democratic hack, which I’m not anyway, but if I look at his rise as simply as an objective political analyst, I don’t see him personally as a threat to democracy, even liberal democracy. So that would be one area where I believe I disagree with Evan McMullin. (2016 Conservative Independent presidential candidate and founder of Standup Republic)

Now, if I were to look at his Trump’s rise as a partisan Democratic hack I might be saying things like, “Donald Trump’s rise is a threat to everything we hold dear as Americans. Civil rights laws, checks and balances, equal rights, equal opportunity, social safety net, etc,!” But thats not my job as someone who is only registered as a Democrat, but doesn’t officially work for the Democratic Party and doesn’t have to go on cable TV news and everyday and night saying things I simply don’t believe, or leaving out important facts, simply to help Democrats and hurt Republicans. Something that is way too common on cable news today from the big three cable news networks from both Democratic and Republican political analysts.

I don’t even see Donald Trump’s movement as a threat to liberal democracy which is more important to me than just democracy. Even though the National-Right in America which is essentially the blue-collar Christian-Right wing of the Tea Party from 2011-12, have very illiberal and fascists tendencies and don’t believe people who disagree with them have the same constitutional rights as they do. Who believe the Trump Administration should be regulating news organizations that write and produce critical pieces and stories about Donald Trump and his allies. Don’t get me wrong, these people are scary and should be opposed at every opportunity.

But again, where I separate from the Even McMullin’s of the world is how much power the Nationalist-Right actually has in America. As we’re seeing with even a Republican Congress and a Trump appointed Justice Department, is how our form of government that was created by our Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals) is supposed to work.

Probably even a majority of Congressional Republicans both in the House and Senate, especially in the Senate, believe the Russia story is a big deal. Which is why there are now three Congressional committee investigations into it which includes the 2016 Trump Campaign. House Intelligence, Senate Intelligence, and Senate Judiciary, looking at any possible involvement that they may have had wth Russia and the Putin Administration last year. As well as a Deputy Attorney (Rod Rosenstein) appointed by President Trump, overseeing a Justice Department investigation into Russia and 2016. The Deputy Attorney General appointing a special counsel (Robert Mueller) to conduct an independent investigation.

Our system is destined so even if you have a populist with nationalistic and even authoritarian learnings, come into power in the White House who believes the job of his Administration is simply to serve and protect him, that there’s a system in place simply designed to serve the people. Even if that means looking into things and people that could hurt the President and his Administration. Our Federal Government which includes not just the Administration, but Congress and the judiciary, are functioning the way they’re supposed to which is why someone even like Donald Trump, can’t become a dictator because he has to many layers of checks and people to say no to him and that you can’t do this or that, to prevent him from becoming a dictator.

Again, I’m not a fan of the Nationalist-Right and I’m offended as an American every time that our President tries to appease them and try to keep them with him, because he actually believes he needs their political support to stay in power. Something that President George W. Bush, his father and President Reagan, would have never even had considered .

Whether its the Steve Bannon folks who probably aren’t racists and ethno-Nationalists, but just ideological Nationalists, or the Neo-Nazis who are racial and ethno-Nationalists. But even if these people command as much as 30% of the Republican Party base, you’re only talking about 20-25 of the American electorate and that includes the racist terrorists, as well as the blue-collar Nationalists who aren’t racists, but believe their form of America is disappearing which is why they don’t like immigration. And even if these people do come to power in America we again have this beautifully designed system of checks and balances that prevents them from turning America into some type of authoritarian fascist state.
Source: NBC News Steve Bannon: Talks President Trump's Economic Nationalist Agenda

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Sargon of Akkad: Why Do People Hate Feminism? Feminist Fundamentalists

Source: Sargon of Akkad-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

According to Merriam-Webster's definition of feminism. Feminism is the belief that women and men should have equal rights and opportunities. To put that even simpler feminism is the belief that women should be treated equally as men and not be punished or rewarded simply because of their gender.

Thats not controversial, because probably 7-8 out ten or more Americans believe that men and women should be treated equally under law and not be punished or rewarded simply because of their gender. You polled Republicans (not including the Christian-Right) and you would get a substantial majority of Americans who believe men and women should be treated equally.

Its radical or fundamentalist feminists, as Sargon of Akkad calls them or even fascist feminist who believe you're either with them and that means 100% of the time, or you're against them. You either believe that men (especially Caucasian men) are ignorant bigots and sexist pigs who struggle to tie their own shoes, or you're part of the problem. You either believe women are superior to men and should have most if not all the power in the country, or you're a sexist pig (even if your'e a women) who hate women of all races and ethnicities.
Sargon of Akkad: Why Do People Hate Feminism? Feminist Fundamentalists