John F. Kennedy Liberal Democrat

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

Thursday, November 30, 2017

Mob Video Vault: Spies Among Us- Communists in The United States

Source: Mob Video Vault-
Source: Mob Video Vault: Spies Among Us- Communists in The United States

I hate communism about as much anyone who is not on the Far-Right and not part of some right-wing fascist ideology like nationalism or theocracy, but I love the First Amendment, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly, more than I hate communism. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, America is great and big enough for all sorts of political philosophies and ideologies. From the great ideologies of liberalism and conservatism, that America has been built around. To the fringe and even dangerous ideologies if these people were to ever have real power in America like communism and nationalism.

What makes America great and exceptional, is our diversity and individualism. Not just our racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity, but our political diversity. That you can have Socialists like the Bernie Sanders of the world who believe the Federal Government should try to do practically everything for people and have all the tax revenue necessary to pay for all of that big centralized government. To Libertarians on the Right, who believe that government should do practically nothing for anybody. Other than law enforcement, national security and foreign affairs.

As Un-American as communism is with how collectivist, statist, anti-individualist a philosophy that it is, fascism is just as Un-American. When you have right-wing fascists and tribalist's that we have not just in America, but in Congress in the 1940s and 1950s, saying that not only communism is bad for America, but people who have communist and other socialist leanings and beliefs, should be in jail and not be allowed to work simply because they have Far-Left beliefs, you're being just as bad and more dangerous as the Communists. Because you're saying free speech and assembly is dangerous in America, even though it guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. And that you should either believe and think like we do, or you should be put in jail or live in the underground of America.

But that is what we had in America in the 1940s and 1950s and had in Congress as well. First with the House Un-American Activities Committee investigation in the 1940s, which was as Un-American as the Communists that they were supposedly investigating. And then later the Senate Investigation Committee investigation led by Senator Joe McCarthy in 1953 and 54. Investigating supposed Communists in the U.S. Government.

Communists on the Far-Left and Christian-Theocrats and Nationalists on the Far-Right, only become a threat to America when they're actually in power. And have no checks on their power and can get away with anything. But short of that they're right to free speech and assembly, is just as strong as anyone else's. As it should be in America and why we are so exceptional because we allow everyone to believe what they believe and even campaign for it.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Reason Magazine: John Stossel- Ayn Rand: The Author People Love To Hate

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

If you're a Socialist especially a hardcore Socialist who looks up to people like Che Guevara and even have some respect at least for some aspects of communism, even if you don't like the authoritarian aspects of it, Ayn Rand literally is the devil. Because she represents everything that you hate. Freedom, individualism, free-thinking, the belief that people should actually be able to make a living on their own and not have to be babysat by government.

Because if you are a Socialist who puts all their political eggs in the basket of big government like a wishbone offense in football that if they can't run the ball, they literally can't move the ball, because they have almost no passing game to speak of. And if government can't solve problems, by itself those problems don't get solved according to the Socialist. Because the socialist philosophy of socialism is completely centered not around government or even big government, but big centralized national government. Where even state or provincial government's, as well as local government's, barely exist, because so much power in the country is centralized with the national government.

Because Socialists tend to see freedom as dangerous and individualism as selfish. That if you give people the freedom to manage their own economic and personal affairs, you're only giving them the freedom to make mistakes that society (which is government, according to the Socialist) will have to pay for. Also, is you give people the freedom  to manage their own affairs, they might become good at it which is what adults tend to do and not need or want government to take care of them and be less incline to have your tax dollars taking care of people who aren't as free as you. Socialists tend to see people who don't think like them at least, if not people in general as idiots. People who need help tying their own shoes and even spelling their own names. Who need big government managing their lives for them.

Socialists also see individualism as selfish. This idea that people can go out in the world and be creative, think for themselves and create new things. Is like trying to explain calculus to a fish. Its so foreign to them and would be like an American who has spent their whole life in America, who only speaks English and one day finds them self in Mongolia. It would be like being on another planet for that person having no idea what people are saying or even what language they're speaking. That is what its like trying to explain freedom and individualism to Socialists. You might have better luck trying to teach your dog to speak Chinese. Because freedom and individualism, completely goes against everything that Socialists have ever believed and have been taught.

As much as the Christian-Right hates feminism and freedom and equal rights for women, as if women are human beings who are capable of making their own decisions and living their own lives and deserving of equal rights as men, thats how much Socialists whether they're democratic or communist, hate Ayn Rand. Because they see her as the devil who represents individualism and freedom. Which to them is as bad as cancer or stealing. It completely goes against what they believe in and what they've been taught as people.
Reason Magazine: John Stossel- Ayn Rand: The Author People Love To Hate

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Chomsky's Philosophy: Noam Chomsky- Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?

Source: Chomsky's Philosophy-
Source: Chomsky's Philosophy: Noam Chomsky- Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?

Noam Chomsky is a self-described Socialist and Libertarian-Socialist, no one's moderate or right-winger, making the perfect argument for why even Neo-Nazis and others on the Far-Right in America, deserve free speech rights simply for being American citizens. Even if they're the worst Americans citizens that we have in America.

Professor Chomsky arguing both for practical as well as principal reasons why even Neo-Nazis have free rights in America. The practical reason being that Neo-Nazis could claim that their First Amendment rights are being trampled on an violated if some government authority passed some censorship law banning free speech in their jurisdiction or if the Federal Government attempted to do that and than enforced that law on Neo-Nazis and other Far-Right hate groups. These hate groups could no only claim that, but they would be right. The right to free speech in America, just doesn't protect free speech, but it protects speech. Including speech that offends the oversensitive so-called politically correct (really Far-Left) in America. Or speech that offends the Christian-Right in America. Certain forms of entertainment that offends the Christian-Right's moral and religious values.

The First Amendment-
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right or the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The Supreme Court has made only three exceptions to this.

Inciting violence like yelling fire and calling for a panic in a large crowded public place.

Falsely libeling people and libeling people with no real base or evidence to back up what you're accusing the person of.

And harassement. You can name call people and call them bad names, but once the person moves away from you and makes it clear they don't want to even hear from you, let alone talk to you, but you insist and follow the person around simply to harass them, you could face legal consequences for that if the person presses charges against you, as well as civil charges.

Simply using language that is offensive and even hatful, as well as false against people you hate short of calling for violence against that individual or people, is protected by the First Amendment in the United States. We're all equal citizens in America all having the same constitutional rights and deserve to have those rights equally enforced and protected. From the best of us who work everyday to make America a better country for everyone and who volunteer for people who are disadvantaged and even donate their time and money to people who aren't doing well. To hateful assholes who look down on people simply because they have a different complexion and are of a different racial and ethnic background as the people who hate them.

As Noam Chomsky the way to deal with Neo-Nazis and other hate groups, is to win the argument. Shouldn't be that difficult to do for anyone with even average intelligence. Most Americans or at least a large majority of us, don't hate people or feel superior to other people, simply because they have a different race or ethnicity. If Neo-Nazis want to claim that Africans are animals and not humans and therefor not deserving of the same rights as Europeans, well we all know that Africans are human beings. If the Neo-Nazis want to deny the Jewish Holocaust and genocide in Europe, show people the footage and literature that proves how false those claims are. Simply just show Americans who are young and perhaps don't know any better how stupid these hate groups are simply by showing people what these groups have claimed and people will know how stupid they are. 

Monday, November 27, 2017

Skeptic Magazine: Rachel Bloom- How Rachel Bloom Became a Card-Carrying Skeptic

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

I believe anyone who is a realist and just doesn't call themselves a realist because they have some need to have people believed they're smarter and more advanced than they really are, but literally lives by the attitude or practice of accepting situations for what they are and not over or underplaying things, but seeing everything for what it is based on the best available information at the time, is not just going to be a skeptic but a natural skeptic. As well as one of the least romantic people you'll ever meet. Not a bad person, necessarily but not someone who doesn't have big dreams generally.

A skeptic is Probably not a fan of romantic comedies and certainly not romance novels and not someone you want to spend a day watching a holiday movie marathon of romantic comedies on The Hallmark Channel or some other network. Not someone who is going to say, "dreams really do come true." But instead will be the person that not just tells you what they know and what they're thinking and will kick your butt verbally when you need it because they'll tell you when you screwed up and perhaps tell you how you can fix the problem or problems. They'll tell you what you don't want to hear, because they know its medicine that you need to know to improve yourself.

According to Wikipedia- skepticism is generally any questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief. A skeptic will be the last person who is going to get screwed over by someone or something, because the skeptic doesn't automatically take everything that they hear from someone else at face value. "That person must be telling the truth because they would't hurt me or are not stupid." Really? That might be true but if that person just happens to tell the same thing to a skeptic, the skeptic won't automatically take whatever that person said at face value, especially if what that person said doesn't match up very well with reality. Doesn't match up with the best available facts and evidence on the ground.

I believe skeptics are people who have generally been screwed over by others in the past and simply hate that feeling to the point that they don't want that to happen to them again. So a wealthy man lets say who perhaps isn't the best looking man around who has a history of being involved with beautiful sexy women who later get a lot of money and other property from the man and perhaps even win judgements against the man, that guy especially if they're still a wealthy man even after dating all the gold diggers, will have hopefully have learned their lesson. Especially after already being played by 3-5 gold diggers in the past and will think long and hard about getting involved with another beautiful sexy woman in the future, especially a younger woman and make preparations in the future. Especially if that guy already has kids who are grown up.

Now, someone who doesn't have a history of being screwed over but has been very skeptical all along just from being on Planet Earth especially in America and knowing that there are a lot of Americans who want the truth to be better than it is, as well as having a habit for telling people what they want to know instead of whatever the truth is, that is the person that you want to get to know. Even if you do love romance and even romantic comedies and holiday movies, because you'll always know where that person is emotionally, what they're thinking because they'll tell you. And you'll end up learning a lot from that person. You also might come down with a case of depression,  because a lot of news in the world and what's going on can be tough to hear. But if you're a mentally healthy intelligent person, you'll not only get a lot from that person but be able to handle that information as well.

I'm not saying people should be negative or positive, optimistic or pessimistic. I'm saying they should be real and always live on Planet Earth. Unless they're an astronaut and then I guess there will be times when they leave the real world. But seriously, always know what's going on so you can make the best available decisions and adjustments that you possibly can. The three most valuable tools that any person can have in life are their health, time, and information. Without your health, you really can't do anything and you might not even be conscience anyway. Without time, well you can't do anything either because you're always out of time.

But without valuable credible information even if you're healthy and manage your time well, you're going to make a lot of mistake simply because you don't know what the hell your'e doing. A person that Rachel Bloom might call can asshole. Someone who is skeptical or is a skeptic, will simply make the best decisions they possibly can because they're always operating under the best information. Thats all.
Skeptic Magazine: Rachel Bloom- How Rachel Bloom Became a Card-Carrying Skeptic

Sunday, November 26, 2017

HBO: Real Time With Bill Maher- Monologue: Sweet Home Alabama

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

I'm not from Alabama and have never even actually spent a day in Alabama, but I get two things out of this story. One, that this behavior (assuming Roy Moore is guilty) is actually normal and if Roy Moore wasn't running for the U.S. Senate, maybe it wouldn't have become news. I mean, you had Republican leaders in that state saying what Moore is accused of are gifts from Good and natural acts. I'm paraphrasing, but thats pretty close.

That if Moore wasn't the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate that this story would have never come out. The women wouldn't have come out because no one in Alabama including the media there, would have taken them seriously, let alone bothered to look into the allegations. Once Roy Moore not just declared his candidacy for the U.S. Senate and then won the GOP nomination, is when this story became a national story.

The Senate is part of Congress obviously and a Federal institution and not many people more powerful in the country than a U.S. Senator. And not many institutions covered more closely than Congress, because of how important it is. Which is why you had a Washington Post reporter covering a Alabama Senate race in Alabama and the women going to The Post to talk about their allegations. Now, if Roy Moore was running for State Senate in Alabama representing Gadsden, Alabama, then this story wouldn't be a big deal. Again, we wouldn't have heard from the women because they wouldn't have been taken seriously. And again, to go back to Alabama as a state, this behavior seems to at least be acceptable to the Christian-Right there. Which is more of a religious cult than anything else.

The other thing that I get from the Roy Moore story is that this is Alabama. Anyone left to wonder the Alabama is seen as a backwards redneck neanderthal state that was in a statewide coma during most of the 20th Century and would only come out of their coma to prevent African-Americans from exercising their constitutional rights as American citizens. So of course a lot of Alabama is not aware of what has been going on in America in the last ten years or so, let alone the 20th Century, because they still believe America is in a pre-civil war area. And that women should be nothing more than servants to men. So why not teenage girls being servants to men and their sexual needs. At least this is the perception of Alabama and not just for Washington, or New York, or San Francisco, but Atlanta and a lot of the state of Georgia which is a neighbor of Alabama.
HBO: Real Time With Bill Maher- Monologue: Sweet Home Alabama

Saturday, November 25, 2017

Glenn Beck: Here's Why ANTIFA is Anti-Trump, Anti-Right, and Anti-Liberal?

Source: Glenn Beck-
Source: Glenn Beck: Here's Why ANTIFA is Anti-Trump, Anti-Right, and Anti-Liberal?

The key term from Glenn Beck's speech is here is that ANTIFA are anti-liberal. Which is what illiberal means and a lot of the people in so-called mainstream media haven't even heard of the word illiberal, let alone knows what it means. An illiberal is someone who opposes liberal values,  especially liberal democratic values. Things like free speech, free assembly, free press, right to privacy, property rights, self-defense, to use as examples. Individualism really in all forms. That everything should be equal and the same for everybody even if people are different and even more productive. And that this so-called equality should be forced on everyone even through force and the government.

ANTIFA calls themselves anti-fascists because they oppose racism and bigotry towards minorities. And yet they use fascist tactics like violence in an attempt to eliminate right-wing fascism and bigotry. Which is hypocritical to put it mildly. It would be like an obese person who goes out of their way to prevent their kids from eating junk food and drinking soft drinks. Because this person says those things aren't good for you which is why you shouldn't eat and drink those products. Someone who is actually and anti-fascist, is actually an anti-fascist. Just like someone who is a Progressive, is actually a Progressive.

You can't say you're an anti-fascist on one hand, while you support fascism on the other hand. Even if you support some fascism because you believe the polices behind it. If you're going to call yourself an anti-fascist, than you better oppose all fascism otherwise you'll lose credibility with anyone who doesn't already support you. Which is what this so-called ANTIFA movement is all about. They're not anti-fascists, but instead oppose right-wing fascism. So at best they're anti-right-wing fascists.

ANTIFA are not even progressive, because they have regressive tendencies and want to go backwards and say people who don't agree with them don't have the same free speech rights as the so-called ANTIFA activists. They're illiberal people on the Far-Right like with the Christian-Theocrats and Christian-Nationalists, and Neo-Nazis, who back Donald Trump. The so-called ANTIFA movement represents fascists illiberal's on the Far-Left.
Glenn Beck: Glenn Beck Daily Show- ANTIFA

Thursday, November 23, 2017

Crash Course: John Green- 1984 by George Orwell- Crash Course Literature

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

Under George Orwell, 1984 is a dystopia where everything is in black and white and apparently rainbows don't exist. You can have black or white, water or skim milk, thats it and no other choices. A very depressing state where it's always dark with no light not even street lights or ever flashlights. Sounds like a world for only chronic depressives and bedwetting leftists who are only happy when they're sad. Up is down, water is dry, rocks are soft, fire is cold, ice is hot, Catholics are Muslim, facts don't even exist, let alone matter. Sort of sounds like Donald Trump's head and state of mind. I was going to leave any Trump jokes and personal jokes out of this on Thanksgiving, but I changed my mind.

Part of Orwell 1984 is about big government, big brother, even though George Orwell was a Socialist and at least shared the goals of Democratic Socialists, but didn't like communism. But he envisioned where everyone basically lived in a complete police state where Big Government always knew what everyone was doing and even talking to. See, in a communist state or a theocratic fascist state, there's no such thing as privacy even, let alone a right to privacy and everyone is subjected to the police state where freedom and individualism are not allowed or even exist.

Imagine doing time in a prison that is the size of a major country. Take North Korea, just to use as an example and you'll know what a police state is like. One gigantic national prison where everyone in society is doing hard time. Talk about raising your kids in prison and if watch those famous prison shows on cable, you'll know what I mean because they cover inmates who also have kids and women who've actually given birth in prison.

Orwell 1984 sounds like a great book for people who've swallowed jars of happy pills. Perhaps mistaking them from sleeping pills in an  attempt to commit suicide and now have just shot themselves in the foot twice. They go from being chronically depressed to being too happy and never being able to go to bed because they're so excited all the time about how awesome life is now for them and are given 1984 by a friend which brings them back down to earth from the Planet Galaxy or wherever. And now they're back in the state of mind where they were before about how much life sucks. If I'm ever too happy which as a realist that will be one hell of a goal to try to accomplish, like trying to swim across the Atlantic Ocean with one arm and one leg, I might actually read Orwell 1984 at some point. Or just move to North Korea to see what life is like in a police state.
Crash Course: John Green- 1984 By George Orwell: Crash Course Literature

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

John Stossel: Who Own Your Body?

Source: John Stossel-
Source: John Stossel: Who Owns Your Body?

I'm going to paraphrase political humorist P.J. O'Rourke on this. I'm very conservative socially in the sense that I live a conservative lifestyle. I don't even smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, not even beer for crying out loud. I don't gamble or even go to casinos. And no, I'm not even religious at all so its not because of some strong religious beliefs why I don't do these things. But instead I don't enjoy these activities and I don't like what tobacco and alcohol do to people, I don't want to become a gambling junky who either has collectors constantly on my ass (if not up my ass) or can't pay his bills because I'm out of money and looking for my next big score at some card game.

And no, I would never even contemplate selling by body for sex or buying sex. I rather listen to a Donald Trump marathon of speeches with him telling everybody how fabulous he is and perhaps end up in coma because of how boring those speeches are. But that is just me.

Again to paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke, just because someone is socially conservative as far as how they live, doesn't mean they believe they have the wisdom and knowledge to run everyone else's lives for them. And be in charge of a national adult day care center telling people when they should go to bed, wake up, eat their meals, what they can eat, who they can talk to and about what and how they talk to people.

Being a social conservative means someone who lives conservatively. Not someone who is so hardcore fundamentalist with their religious beliefs that they believe they know exactly how everyone else should live as well. Even to the point that they would force their religious and cultural beliefs on everyone else though government force. I might be a social conservative when it comes to lifestyle, but I'm a Liberal when it comes to my political beliefs, as someone who bases all his views not just on politics, but everyone else in life based on the best available facts and evidence. My views are based on reason, not faith.

Prostitution like every other activity in life that comes with risk and in prostitution's case a lot of risk as far as the people you work with, go to bed with and the clients you deal with, but like gambling, tobacco, alcohol, pornography, certain plastic surgeries, are things that have been around forever and are never going to disappear. They'll always be with us whether they're legal or not. So the question then becomes what should be done about them.

Do we put people in jail simply because they're personally involved in activities that aren't good for them and as a result create a gigantic nanny state that makes the Communist Republic of North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran, look like thriving first world liberal democracies, or do we legalize these activities so we can make them as safe as possible and no longer allow people who work in these activities avoid paying the taxes that everyone else hates to pay (except Socialists) but pays, because these workers are involved in illegal dangerous activities . And are obviously afraid to report their income. That is the question when it comes to prostitution or any other dangerous activity in America.

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

AlterNet: Opinion- Liz Posner: '8 Things That Are Probably True About You if You Identify As Spiritual But Not Religious'

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

When I hear someone tell me that they're spiritual, but not religious, my first reaction if I'm not smirking is something generally like, "really?"

Someone who is religious believes in a God who is a superhuman controlling power and a belief in something greater than them self.

Someone who is self-described as spiritual, but not religious is someone who believes in the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul, as opposed to material or physical things. Sort of sounds like the definition of a Socialist, but that might be for a different discussion. According to Wikipedia the term spirituality originally developed within early Christianity.

Someone who is religious is also spiritual. I mean, what do you think houses of worship are for. You could be someone who practices a certain religion but doesn't believe in God or is simply neutral when it comes to God like an Agnostic and be spiritual in that way. There's this growing movement with young people (meaning Millennial's) who don't want to be religious or at least seen as religious with people they hangout with or respect, because they believe those people will think they're not cool or something, but they also don't want to be identified as Atheists either. So they try to thread the needle (so to speak) and self-identify as spiritual.

Spirituality is very common and popular with hipsters especially in Hollywood who believe religion is not cool, or at least their followers believe religion is not cool, but they're not comfortable identifying themselves as Atheists, because they come from religious families or perhaps just don't want to be known as an Atheist. In case it isn't obvious, Hollywood is about perception and not reality. Style over substance, which is something that they have in common with politicians.

If someone tells me they're an Atheist, I can respect that. I mean really, who can honestly actually say they've seen God before, let alone met the man. I mean, we don't see any sightings of Jesus Christ, or Moses, or Allah, except maybe around Halloween.

Its the fundamentalist Atheists who I have a problem with who look down upon people who are religious simply because they're religious. Or the faux Atheists who claim to be Atheists, but only critique Christianity especially fundamentalist Protestant Christianity because of hard-core stances that Evangelicals take on social issues and bigotry that they show against gays and other religions, women's place in the world, but never critique other religions that have similar, if not identical stances on the same issues.

Or so-called Atheists who label people as bigots even when they accurately critique Muslims for their regressive views on the same social issues that Evangelicals are known for having. And of course I'm talking about how the so-called politically correct Far-Left went after Bill Maher a few years ago for his stances against Islam. Bill Maher is a real Atheist and doesn't just call himself to sound cool with hipsters.

I'm an Agnostic myself simply because I don't know if there is a God or not. As a Liberal I base all my political beliefs as well as non-political beliefs on reason, evidence, and facts. Instead of having faith in some so-called higher being who supposedly always has my best interest at heart. Even though I never met this supposed person. And I'm someone who tends to not have faith in things or people, unless there's good reason and evidence to have faith. But just because you don't know that there is a God, doesn't mean you know there isn't a God. Which is where I separate from Atheists.

A big problem with America especially with young people (I know I sound like a grandfather now) is faddism. This need to be seen following whatever the current trend is especially with whatever fad young cool people are following. If walking down the street or showing up to work wearing nothing but a t-shirt, underwear, and cowboy boots, became a regular thing with whoever the current hot celebrities are supposed to be, you would see thousands if not millions of young Americans doing the same thing. And we would probably see a spike in the unemployment rate as a result, at least with young adults, because those people would get fired right on the spot for completely breaking the company dress code. Spirituality along with Scientology, is a Hollywood hipster fad and when its no longer seen as cool is when it will disappear. But not a movement that I respect or even take seriously.
Source: Koi Fresco: Religion Vs. Spirituality

Monday, November 20, 2017

The Washington Post: Opinion- Anne Applebaum: 100 Years After The October Revolution, Bolshevism is Back & We Should be Worried

Source: The Washington Post-
Source: The Washington Post: Opinion- Anne Applebaum: 100 Years After The October Revolution, Bolshevism is Back & We Should Be Worried

Anne Applebaum in her Washington Post column seems to be arguing that the New-Right or Alt-Right both in America and in Europe, come from leftist movements and we really aren't talking about right-wingers here, but Far-Leftists who are now backing right-wing Nationalist candidates, because these Nationalist candidates and politicians, are also anti-multiculturalism, integration, globalization, perhaps share certain fundamentalist religious beliefs when it comes to cultural issues.

I hope Anne Applebaum is not making this argument at least from pure partisan lens and is someone on the Right who simply can't admit that there are extremists and fringe elements on her side of the political spectrum. Which is what right-wingers Hugh Hewett and Jeffrey Lord do all the time when they're questioned about some extremist or fringe movement on the Right, there response is always something to the affect, what about these extremists on the Left, or the extremists that are being talked about are really left-wingers. In an attempt dodge the issue.

Hyper-Partisans on the Right argue all the time that Neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan, are actually leftists. Or that it was Progressive and Liberal Democrats, who fought against and blocked civil rights legislation in Congress in the 1960s. Even though the opposition to those laws actually came from Neo-Confederate right-wing Dixiecrats in the Democratic Party who are Republicans today because of the civil rights law and the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. And besides, a lot of people on the Right who make these arguments that Left were the ones blocking civil rights legislation, don't support those laws today.

As far as Nationalists in America and even Neo-Confederates in America who backed Donald Trump and the Republicans who still back President Trump in Congress especially in the House of Representatives, they're part of the right-wing populist Tea Party movement of the late 2000s and earlier part of this decade. Representative Steve King from Iowa, is inline with President Trump on all the cultural and economic issues, as well as foreign affairs. Who sees multiculturalism and non-European immigration as a threat to American culture. Right-wing author and columnist Ann Coulter, is one of the princesses of the Alt-Right, has been one of Donald Trump's biggest supporters since he declared his presidential candidacy in 2015. Same thing with right-wing Nationalist columnist and author Pat Buchanan, who has backed Donald Trump from day one.

We're not talking about Communists or even Democratic Socialists when we're talking about Donald Trump's Nationalist base in America. We're talking about blue-collar populists from the deep South and Midwest, who are primarily European-American, as well as Protestant, but Catholic as well, who believe their America is disappearing and see immigration as a threat to their way of life and culture in America.

Donald Trump who is no genius when it comes to public policy certainly and doesn't even read legislation and policies that comes out in favor of, before changing his mind the next day after hearing from people who disagree with the policy because they've read it and understand it, but Trump doesn't have a keen political eye. And saw a huge opening and feeling in the country and way to tap into it and form his own political movement that he use to get to the White House. Even though 10-15 years ago you cold probably accurately describe Donald Trump as a New York Liberal Democrat.
Source: In Defense of Marxism: The Bolsheviks and The War



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- Mark Bray, with what he calls the Anti-Fascist Handbook-
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