Kire Schneider: Anita Ekberg Tribute

Source:Celebrities Team- The Swedish Goddess Anita Ekberg.

“Tribute to Anita Ekberg (1931 – 2015)”

From Celebrities Team

"Anita Ekberg Tribute"

Source:The Queen of The Prom- The Swedish Goddess Anita Ekberg.

Source:The Queen of The Prom

As I mentioned last week, Anita Ekberg was like the other Hollywood bombshell Goddess’s of the 1950s, like Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield, Diana Dors, but like Angie Dickinson, Gena Rowlands, Kim Novak, and others she was better. Physically about as adorable as the first group of women that I just mentioned, as well as hot, tall with a great Nordic body, but she was better.

Anita Ekberg wasn’t a 1950s actress, or a fad, flash in the pan, the hot celebrity of the moment like a lot of so-called entertainers today who are only famous in a lot of cases because they either look good in tight designer outfits, or have blunt, filthy, mouths (And I’m thinking of what’s called reality TV) Or they’re married to a famous man with a famous personality.

To have a long successful career in Hollywood or Europe as an actor or actress, you actually have to be able to act. Which I know sounds foreign to people who are only familiar with movies and shows from the last 20 years or so. You have to know what you’re doing, what you’re good at, what roles fit you, what you do best, how to communicate with the media.

If you look at Anita from the last 1950s and then go up 40 years, what’s changed about her other than she’s forty years older? She’s still gorgeous, she’s still very cute, she still has a beautiful body, she’s still sharp, she still has that quick, straightforward wit. And perhaps the most important thing that separates her from Marilyn and Jayne, she’s still working. She grew up but it didn’t take her several marriages and stints in rehab clinics to grow up. Unlike Marilyn and Jayne who never grew up personally and emotionally, Anita did that as a young woman.

I believe two great movies where you really see how good as an actress and not just a comedic or dramatic actress, but as an actress that Anita was, was The Inside Man and 4 For Texas.

The Inside Man where she plays a private detective in search of jewelry that she’s believes is her’s that was stolen from her.

In The Inside Made, she exchanges wisecracks with Jack Palance in that movie, as well as other things. 4 For Texas where she exchanges wisecracks with one of the best smart assess who has ever lived in Frank Sinatra.

Anita Ekberg was a Hollywood Goddess not just because of her Goddess appearance, that was certainly a big part of that. A woman with that body who is also that adorable with those hot baby face features with the eyes, the cheeks, the smile, the voice. But also and just as important she was a hell of an actress as well. I believe born for dramatic comedy and soap operas. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger.

CNN: Race For The White House: Richard Nixon vs John Kennedy (1960)

Source:CNN- the 1960 Democratic National Convention.

"CNN Race for the White House 1of6 Nixon vs JFK"

Source:Charlemagne Dumdum Calotes

1960 between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy, was one of the last presidential elections in America that was about ideas, vision, experience, and qualifications. Instead of having two unlikable candidates who know they're unlikable and unpopular and use that to defeat their opponents. Going back to really 1996 and perhaps 1992, American presidential elections have been about destroying the other side instead of winning the election. And telling American voters, "we know you don't like us, but you should hate our opponents more and this is why." Where winning presidential elections has become about and has been about for a generation now negative adverting and campaigning. The campaign that runs the best negative ads and makes the best negative arguments agains their opponent, tends to win.

Instead of winning elections because your opponent is more qualified, has better experience, better ideas, better vision, more forward looking, more likable as an individual. In 1960 America had two great choices. Two very bright well-educated presidential candidates, who both wanted to be President and both knew why. Both had something positive to offer Americans. And of course there was negative advertising and campaigning between Dick Nixon and Jack Kennedy. but that wasn't what their campaigns was about.

Vice President Nixon offered American four more years of what was already working from the Eisenhower Administration. Senator Kennedy was offering Americans a new generation of leadership and new way of thinking. That the U.S. Government needed to new leadership to deal with the challenges of the 1960s. Americans had a real choice of either sticking with what was working ( according to the Eisenhower Administration ) or move in a different direction and deal with issues like civil rights for all Americans, health care for senior citizens, and other issues.

1960 to me is what presidential elections should be about, at least within the two-party system. Putting the two best candidates that America has to offer, or at least the best Democrat and Republican against each other. With both candidates offering why they should be President, instead of arguing why their opponent shouldn't be President. And because America is so divided not just politically, but culturally, and now even ethnically and racially, having a positive presidential election doesn't seem possible anymore. At least not with the two-party system.

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.

The Humble Libertarian: Wes Messamore- 'The Far-Left's Ideal Man'

Source: The Humble Libertarian

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

Warning: for all you so-called social justice and political correctness warriors, this piece could come off as very offensive to you all tight asses who’ve escaped society and haven’t heard let alone got a joke in years and have been isolated from the rest of society that can tell the difference between humor and critique, from bigotry.

Source: The Humble Libertarian

I agree with Wes Messamore that the Far-Left’s ( not the entire Left ) ideal man wouldn’t have a penis. Or at least wouldn’t be straight and masculine. The Far-Left’s radical feminists and Communists, ideal man is basically a queen. A gay man with a very feminine perspective on life who has no interest in manly activities. Who walks around like a female runway model, proud to wear pink. Hates manly sports at least and sees football as promotion of violence in America. Speaks with a voice that makes him sound like a horse kicked him in a balls at least a hundred times, it’s so high.

Source: Font Craft

The Far-Left’s ideal woman are three different types of women. One is an upscale Northeast or West Coast yuppie, who works and lives in a loft, runs or manages her own whit-collar business. Looks cool with glasses on and never is seen either not staring at her smartphone or holding a cup off coffee from her favorite coffee house.

Another type of woman that the Far-Left loves is an antiestablishment Socialist radical who sees her job as to eliminate all forms of individualism in America. Destroy what she sees as the racist, sexist, selfish, materialistic, American capitalist system. And replace it with a feminist socialist system centralized economic system and government. Where central planners controlled by feminists Socialists, would be in charge for everyone else to decide what everyone needs to live well in life. If you’re familiar with the New-Left of the late 1960s and early 1970s with groups like The Weather Underground, Students For a Democratic Society and ANTIFA today, you know exactly who I’m talking about.

The third deal woman of the Far-:Left is a dyke. Radical feminists don’t hate masculinity completely, just when it comes from Caucasian men especially Anglo-Saxon men. But they like masculinity when it comes from women and non-Caucasian men. They love African-American entertainers and athletes and other African-American men, who are just as masculine as European-American men and in some cases at least more masculine, just as long as they’re also part of the Far-Left not on the right like people like Economics Professor’s Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell. So if radical feminist Socialists ever became in charge in America and perhaps only through violent force or everyone else decided to leave the country or simply forgot to vote that day, maybe that would allow some men to keep their dick’s. Just as long as they’re far-left as them.

It’s not so much men that radical feminists hate, except for man-hating lesbian dykes, who in many cases are more masculine than your average straight man. Who get hired by 275 pound NFL lineman to be their bodyguards, because they feel safer having a dyke as their bodyguard. And claim that their dyke bodyguard has more masculinity than his entire football team combined. It Caucasian male masculinity that radical feminists socialists ( or RFS’s ) hate. Because they hold these guys personally responsible for what they see as our racist, sexist, selfish, militarist, economic system and form of government. And if they were to ever become in charge in America, you would see about hundred-million straight men least headed to Canada for fear of having their dick’s chopped off. Because these RFS’s hate straight men, at least straight Caucasian men.

Source: Anna Akana: If Women Ruled The World

The Rubin Report: Thaddeus Russell- 'Socialism, Authoritarianism & Liberalism'

Source:The Rubin Report- Thaddeus Russell on The Rubin Report.

“Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Thaddeus Russell (Author, Professor) about growing up in a socialist family in Berkeley, the evolution of politics, authoritarianism vs libertarianism, political labels and the meaning of the word liberal, the debate around using the N-word to discuss racism, and much more. This is part of our collaboration with Learn Liberty featuring interviews with classical liberals….

From The Rubin Report

I disagree with Dave Rubin at least one point here and it gets to my main beef ( for lack of a better word ) with Libertarians today who are not Classical Liberals, but hardcore Libertarians and even Anarcho-Libertarians. Who believe they're the only defenders of freedom and everyone else right or left are big government statists and fascists.

But if you're familiar with American politics you know it's not as simple as ordering a meal when you're a patient at a hospital. And you're essentially choosing between two things you don't want to eat because they'll both taste bad, but you're smart enough to know that you don't want to die from starvation in a hospital and you order the least bad tasting of the two choices. You decide that if you're going to die in a hospital, it will be on the operating table, not from starvation on your hospital bed.

When it comes to people who believe in personal autonomy, personal choice, personal responsibility, free speech, it's not Libertarians versus everyone else. With Libertarians being the only believers in freedom in America, versus the statists. That everyone else including Liberals and Progressives on the center-left and Conservatives and even Conservative-Libertarians on the center-right, are really just big government statists. And are no better than the Christian-Nationalists on the far-right and Socialists and Communists on the far-left.

This libertarian fascism ( which might sound like an Oxymoron ) where there Libertarians even who believe they have all the intelligence and all the bright ideas and the only believers in freedom, is the main reason why I can't be a Libertarian and will always be a Liberal, even if you prefer to call me a Classical Liberal. Because as a Liberal I can't look at politics as good versus evil with one side having all the morality and the other side being evil.

There good Liberals, there good Progressives, there good Conservatives, there good Conservative-Libertarians, there even some good Socialists. Democratic generally, but there are good Socialists. There good Christian-Conservatives who by enlarge are good Christians even, who I just tend to disagree with on social issues, but who aren't racists and people who do care about others and always looking to help people in need live better lives. American politics to me is not about good versus evil, but debating what's the best approach and what are the best ideas and leaving it to the voters to figure this out and who they select to lead them to govern. Not about the good conquering the evil.

Now, where I agree with Dave Rubin is that political labels are losing their meaning. If you were just getting into American politics yesterday, you might think liberal is just another way of saying socialist or communist. And are people who are simply involved in politics to eliminate all forms of individuality and individualism and put women in charge of everything. And believe Caucasians are basically bad people, especially Anglo-Saxons and men, are bad people.

And that if you were just getting into American politics yesterday, you might believe that conservative is another way of saying Christian-Nationalist militarist fascist, who hates all non-Europeans and even hates some Europeans as well who aren't of English or British background. Like Jews, Italians, Slavs, and other Southern Europeans. Who want to force their religious and moral values on the rest of the country and want to eliminate our liberal democratic federal republic and replace it with an fundamentalist Evangelical Christian theocracy.

But if you're actually familiar with American politics, you know that both liberalism and conservatism, are not about authoritarianism and they are similar, but not because they're both about authoritarianism, but because they both believe in a high degree of individualism and personal autonomy. Both believe in capitalism and private enterprise, property rights, civil liberties, strong national defense, that America has an important role in the world to promote and defend human rights  and freedom, but differ when it comes to the role of government especially as it relates to the economy. Liberals tend to be more in favor of a public safety net for people who truly need it and regulations to protect consumers and workers. And Conservatives tend to be more in favor of privatization when it comes to the economy.

Of course there are people who believe that individualism and personal autonomy, are horrible things and that European-Americans tend to be bad people and everything else that comes from the Far-Left. And there are people who basically believe that non-Europeans are bad people and that there are even Europeans who are bad people. Who want to enforce their moral and religious values on the rest of everyone else in America. But you have Socialists and Communists on the far-left, who believe in these far-left anti-individualist, anti-male, anti-European-American values. And you have have Christian-Nationalists on the far-right who believe their religious and moral values are superior to everyone else and therefor should be forced on everyone else in America. But these people aren't Liberals or Conservatives. There authoritarians, but from different factions ranging from the far-left to the far-right.

But I go back to my point about ordering a meal in a hospital ( that I would only wish on my worst enemies to have to do ) that American politics is not a choice between a bad chicken dinner and a bad spaghetti dinner. That the American political spectrum is more like what you would see at a good diner or restaurant and it might take you five minutes to read the whole thing, maybe ten if you haven't been to that diner or restaurant before or because you have so many good choices. That it's not about liberal and liberal representing the entire left-wing in America and that conservative represents the entire right-wing in America. Liberals represent the center pro-freedom left in America. Conservatives represent the center pro-freedom  right in America. And you have you all these fringe factions on both wings that make the Liberals and Conservatives look like they're something that they're not, which are authoritarians.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on Blogger.

Randall Colburn: 'Here's Why Critics Go The Big Lebowski Wrong'

Source:The New Republic- The Dude ( played by Jeff Bridges ) on one of his marijuana trips

"If some eager, film-loving acquaintance giddily sought to show you The Big Lebowski, and you glazed over afterwards, confused as to why everyone told you it’s “the funniest movie ever made,” you’re not alone. Critics, primed for more of Joel and Ethan Coen’s vision after the success of 1996's Fargo, more or less thrashed the film upon its release, disappointed by its meandering plot and absurdist diversions. Many have come around on it in recent years, while others haven’t. As Jeet Heer points out in a 20th anniversary piece on the film in The New Republic, New Yorker critic Daphne Merkins stands by the ambivalence of her initial review, calling it “a quintessential insider movie, one that plays in this shrewd way to groupthink. You’re either in on it, or you’re not in on it.”

What Heer gets at in his piece is that The Big Lebowski is perhaps not quite meant for one-and-done viewing or immediate critical analysis. He shares a Twitter exchange with The Last Jedi director Rian Johnson, who calls the film a “grower,” while admitting that he “totally didn’t get it” when he saw it in the theater but that he “kept rewatching.”

Source:AV Club

"Jeff `The Dude' Leboswki is mistaken for Jeffrey Lebowski, who is The Big Lebowski. Which explains why he's roughed up and has his precious rug peed on. In search of recompense, The Dude tracks down his namesake, who offers him a job. His wife has been kidnapped and he needs a reliable bagman. Aided and hindered by his pals Walter Sobchak, a Vietnam vet, and Donny, master of stupidity." 

Source: Screen Bites- The Dude, meeting his match?

From Screen Bites

I sort of look at The Big Lebowski as a parody of hipsters as a movie that makes fun of hipsterism and sends America the message that this is what can happen to you when you don't grow up and completely dissolve your yourself from society. 

The Dude ( played by the great Jeff Bridges ) is a middle age hippie radical from the 1960s who still believes it's 1968 or something. Well, when White Russians are your main beverage and you don't seem to drink anything else during the day, except when you're at the grocery store drinking out of a carton of milk ( which did happen in the movie ) the world can pass you by because your brain lacks the braincells to keep up with everyday life. Same thing when you smoke pot on a regular basis. Not that I'm against legalizing pot, I just wouldn't recommend that people smoke it several times a day. Love Snickers bars, but I make sure that I eat other things as well. Like potato chips.

The Big Lebowski is a movie about hipsters and hipsterism and people who see hipsters as losers and bums and hipsterism as a loser lifestyle for bums. The hipster outsiders played by Jeff Bridges, as ( The Dude ) John Goodman, ( another great comedian as Walter ) and Steve Buscemi (As Donnie ) who are looked down upon but perhaps seem useful even in a limited way by the successful establishment, the winners in Los Angeles in 1991, or at least some of them. David Huddleston, ( as the successful Jeffrey Lebowski ) Phillip Hoffman, ( as Brandt ) and Julianne Moore ( as the radical 1960s feminist Maude Lebowski ).

And the movie turns into a private detective crime story/soap opera where the Jeff Lebowski claims his trophy wife who is young enough to be his granddaughter, not just daughter, ( played by Tara Reid ) is kidnapped and believes The Dude is useful here in trying to bring is trophy wife back to him. The theory being that the people who supposedly kidnapped Bunny ( played by Tara Reid ) are also hipster/losers and The Dude can work with them  speaks their language and so-forth and bring the girl back to her husband.

The problem that Mr. Lebowski, has is that The Dude is not as dumb as he looks. Sure! He's missing brain cells from his constant pot and alcohol consumption, but he's smart enough to know when he's being played and when someone is lying to him. 

All three hipsters in the movie who are all friends and very close to each other, The Dude is the only one who figures out early in the story that Bunny, was never kidnapped. How did Dude put it? "There was never any real kidnapping. Bunny kidnapped herself." He figures this out after the first attempt to payoff the kidnappers with a million dollar ransom fails. And The Dude tells his buddies that the girl kidnapped herself.

Dude explains why he believes that with the girl being a trophy wife who owes money all over town who s simply using her grandfather, I mean rich, old husband, to finance her expensive lifestyle and to pay off her pimps. The fake kidnapping was about getting a million dollars from Mr. Lebowski to pay the girl and her friends off. Except for maybe her pimps, Bunny was completely safe the entire movie.

And then the rich 1960s, radical, feminist ,daughter, Maude ( played by Julianne Moore ) comes into the story, because her father gave Dude one of her valuable rugs. If you're familiar with the great 1970s CBS sitcom Maude, Maude Lebowski is not that different from Maude Findlay ( played by Bea Arthur ) except that Maude Findlay loves men and Maude Lebowski, I believe at least comes off as a man-hating lesbian, not just as a radial feminist. Maude comes into the story because again her father gives away her rug to The Dude and she wants it back. And sends her thugs to Dude's apartment to steal it from him.

Bunny is the real problem in the story, as well as having two main characters with the last name Lebowski, because she's a former ( perhaps current prostitute ) and not just gold digger who owes her pimps money and her pimp wants his money back and sends his thugs over to Lebowski's place to get his money back. 

The mistake that Jackie Treehorn ( played by Ben Gazzara ) and his thugs make other than breaking and entering into a private home without permission, is that that break into the wrong Lebowki's home. The Dude lives in a fairly small apartment and probably doesn't have 20 bucks on him, let alone million or whatever Bunny owes. The rich Lebowski lives in a mansion.

Again, I kind of see this movie as the establishment in society ( however you want to define that ) taking on hipsters and perhaps using this movie as a lesson to young people and saying this is what happen when you don't finish school and don't seem to care about anything in life other than having a good time and living one day at a time. 

The problem that the so-called winners have is that the hipsters, the bums, the losers, come out on top. The Dude and his buddy Walter, figure out the the kidnapping never happened and was simply just a lie and they fend off and so-called kidnappers and the good guys come through in the ninth and win the game.

This is one of the funniest movies you ever possibly ever see and a represents the 1990s very well as what it is which is a great decade for movies and American life in general and I believe the best comedy from that decade. 

You can also se ethis post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

Archive TV: Anita Ekberg Documentary: The Swedish Goddess

Source:Archive TV- Swedish Goddess Anita Ekberg.

"BBC Four - Arena, 1999."

Source:Archive TV:

In the 1950s in Hollywood, there was this blonde bombshell trend that was going on there. Directors and producers, studio executives, were looking got the next hot blonde actress. Gorgeous, curvy, sexy women, who also happened to be blonde and of Nordic or Slavic background. Or at least had the physical look of a Nordic Slavic woman. A woman who is tall, curvy, athletic looking, gorgeous and very cute as well. Kim Novak was part of this era, Marilyn Monroe who by herself made this look popular of the hot blonde with the great curves and the baby face. Followed by Jayne Mansfield, Diana Dors, Kim Novak, Angie Dickinson, Gena Rowlands, Diana Dors, I'm sure I'm leaving some women out, but one woman I'm not leaving out here is Anita Ekberg.

Jayne Mansfield was expected to be the next Marilyn Monroe. Diana Dors was expected to the Marilyn of Britain. Anita Ekberg wasn't the Marilyn of Sweden, but she was better than I believe all of these women at least physically. She was more responsible with her life lived to 82 unlike Marilyn who dies at 36 from probably a drug overdose. Jayne dies at 34 in a car accident, Diana dies at 53 from cancer. The other women that I mentioned are still alive and well and in some cases still working.

Anita Ekberg ( The Swedish Goddess ) was hotter and sexier than I believe all of these women and I believe part of that at least was that as adorable as she was and she was a hot baby like all these women were with the gorgeous baby face and great Swedish voice and accent to match. But she was a Hollywood Goddess because she was a grew up. She managed her life very well and took care of herself. Wasn't immature like Marilyn and Jayne and didn't have a little girl or teenage girl's personality and lack of maturity, to match her adorable baby face. Marilyn and Jayne were both so adorable and came off as childlike a lot of times, because their personalities were as cute and immature as their appearances.

Anita and Diana Dors, didn't have those problems. They knew they were good at least if not great and didn't have identity or self-confidence issues. They didn't burn our because people wanted to work with them and they wanted to keep working. And if you look at this documentary which is from 1999, Anita was 67-68 at this point and lived another 14 years and still looked great. Still gorgeous, still very cute, still very sharp. Still had that great voice.

Anita was a true Hollywood Goddess because as great as she looked and I believe she's one of the best looking woman to ever work in Hollywood at least, she stood the test of time and took care of herself, kept improving herself especially her craft and remained relevant as an actress her entire career. Unlike some of these other Hollywood Goddess's who burned out early in life.

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger.

Jack Ruby: Lee Harvey Oswald Assassin

Source:Britannica- Dallas nightclub owner and perhaps part-time Dallas Mafia assassin Jack Ruby.

“Jack Ruby, in full Jack L. Ruby, original name Jacob Rubenstein, (born March 25?, 1911, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.—died January 3, 1967, Dallas, Texas), American nightclub owner who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, the suspected assassin of Pres. John F. Kennedy, on November 24, 1963, as Oswald was being transferred to a county jail. Despite Ruby’s claims to the contrary—and a lack of evidence—some have posited that he was part of a larger conspiracy concerning Kennedy’s assassination.”

From Britannica 

“The image of Jack Ruby firing a pistol at Lee Harvey Oswald – the man arrested on suspicion of carrying out the assassination of US President John F Kennedy – is one of the most famous of the 20th Century.

We speak to Dallas Times-Herald photographer Bob Jackson about his Pulitzer Prize winning picture.”

Source:BBC News- covering the Lee Harvey Oswald killing of Jack Ruby, in 1963.

From BBC News

"Jacob Leonard Rubenstein - Jack Ruby - Conspiracy." Originally from Mob Video Vault, but the video has been deleted or blocked on YouTube. 

Source:Mob Video Vault- Dallas nightclub owner and part-time gangster Jack Ruby.

There all sorts of wild eye conspiracy theories ranging from the Far-Left people who think either Vice President Lyndon Johnson or the CIA, perhaps Far-Rightists in Dallas who hated President John Kennedy because of his stances on civil rights, as well as people on the fringe Libertarian-Right who believe the CIA murdered President Kennedy, to people on the Far-Right who believed multiple Communists including Lee Harvey Oswald murdered President Kennedy, conspiracies that sound like they're not just from out of this planet, but from a different universe. Perhaps aliens from Planet Zolkon (or whatever the hell sic-fi fictional planet would be called) looking down on Planet Earth and seeing what's going on in Dallas, Texas in America in 1963 when President Kennedy is assassinated, with their own wild eye conspiracy theories.

Some of these crazy conspiracy theories are from crazy people, or at least people who lost touch with Planet Earth and are now doing their thinking on other planets. But some of these conspiracy theories are simply just made up in order to profit from them. Sell books, articles, documentaries, movies, etc. 

And I'm thinking of Roger Stone on the Libertarian-Right who has floated the conspiracy theory that Vice President Lyndon Johnson, ordered the assassination of President Kennedy. To the Oliver Stone's of the world on the Far-Left, who claim the JFK assassination was an inside job conducted by the National Security State either the CIA or FBI, was behind the assassination of President Kennedy. 

As well as people on the Far-Left who believe that racist Southern right-wingers in Texas, were responsible for President Kennedy's assassination.

The only alternative theory to the official U.S. Government theory being that Lee Harvey Oswald was not only the killer and assassinated President Kennedy, but he was all by himself and had absolutely no help, is the theory that organized crime especially the Italian Mafia in Dallas and perhaps Chicago as well, Chicago especially who hated President Kennedy and the Kennedy's Administration's crackdown on organized crime in America led by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, were behind the assassination of President Kennedy. 

A credible theory is that the Chicago, as well as Dallas Mobs believed that if they didn't take President Kennedy out, they could be out of business all together in the 1960s because the Justice Department would put them out of business. 

Bob Kennedy and his Justice Department, deserves a lot of credit for putting the Italian Mafia out of business in America. Not completely but they're no longer powerful in America. They're also responsible thanks to the FBI, for the Ku Klux Klan being as weak as they are now as well.

The best alternative theory out there is that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin in the JFK assassination and wanted President Kennedy dead because Kennedy as a Liberal Democrat was a strong anti-communist. 

But that since the Italian Mafia also wanted Kennedy dead not because they were Communists because of course they weren't, that they worked with Lee Oswald to assassinate President Kennedy. And that perhaps there was a freak out once the assassination was completed either from Lee Oswald who is now in jail at this point because of his crime and it's now sinking into him what he actually had done, or the mob is now freaking out because they're worried that Oswald will talk and implicate the Dallas Mafia and perhaps Chicago Mafia's into the JFK assassination as well.

Jack Ruby who was a Dallas nightclub owner and businessman, but who had ties to the Italian Mafia in Dallas and perhaps Chicago as well, murdered Lee Oswald just days after President Kennedy is assassinated. He murders Lee Oswald and is arrested for it  literally right after he kills Oswald and was literally able to just walk up to Oswald and shoot him in the chest. 

How was Jack Ruby able to kill Lee Oswald? Why was the Dallas PD security so weak when attempting to move the loan suspect in the JFK assassination from the Dallas jail to the court house? 

Jack Ruby had connections not just with the mob , but with cops on the Dallas PD. So maybe he's able to pull this murder off because his friends on the police force let him in to get the clearance to shoot Oswald. Whether this is true or not we of course don't no, but it is a reasonable theory and alternative to the official theory that Lee Oswald was all by himself in assassinating President Kennedy.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.

The Atlantic: David Frum- 'When Gun Owners Become Hypocritical Hippies'

Source:The Atlantic- David Frum calling 2nd Amendment absolutists, hippies.

“Rights come with responsibilities,” argues The Atlantic writer David Frum. “Understanding this principle is what distinguishes an adult from a child. Yet the gun lobby rejects this basic bargain.” In this Atlantic Argument, Frum questions the “self-indulgent permissiveness” that leads conservatives down a trail of hypocrisy."

From The Atlantic

I never thought I word here gun owners and hippies, in the the same sentence. Hard to imagine a peace-loving hippie who perhaps the only goal that they have in life is to escape civilization ( especially their parents ) who just wants to make love and dance, smoke pot, ever owning a gun. And when I think of hardcore gun owners at least, I think of people who believe there under constant threat from law enforcement and moved as far away from civilization that they possibly can believing the cops are not just out to get them, but worst from their point of view that they're trying to confiscate their guns.

There obviously gun owners who are more moderate, reasonable, and even sane than that, but if you're playing on the stereotypes from hippies and gun owners that's what it looks like. And with the crazy rhetoric that comes from the National Rifle Association ( or NRA ) every time there is a new mass shooting in America ( which seems like every week now ) they use that type of rabid anti-gun control rhetoric. "The Socialists and Communists, are coming for your guns. Load up and fend them off!" With their rabid members literally taking that rhetoric as seriously as hearing a weather report in Seattle that it's going to rain tomorrow. But I get David Frum's point here.

I've been reluctant to weigh in the gun control debate for more than a month now other than a few postings on social media, because I get this what's the point feeling every time the latest crisis breaks out and now we're at the point that we're literally losing our future to gun violence, mass shooting, mentally incompetent and irresponsible people taking their frustrations out on our future and we're now losing teenagers in high school who would've been in college next year in some cases. Or a few years from now, but are now buried underground because we as a society have chosen not to protect our most vulnerable from people who probably shouldn't even be allowed to get on airplanes, or drive cars, date out daughters, let alone own guns in America or anywhere else in the world.

I love our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. I've built most if not all of my liberal political philosophy around it, but as David Frum said in his video the what separates adults from children are rights and responsibilities. Kid's tend to just want the rights, adults understand that with those rights come responsibilities and when you abuse your rights like staying out too late to use as an example, there consequences that come from breaking the rules. Like maybe you don't go out at all the next day and are confined inside doing your homework and doing house chores or something.

There are no such thing as absolute rights in America. You can't murder someone in the privacy of your home. You  can't accuse some of murder without absolutely no evidence. You can't force someone to have sex or have an abortion. And you can't freely shoot a firearm in public with people everywhere just for the pure pleasure of shooting your gun and for the hell of it. All of our beautiful individual rights in America come with responsibilities and those rights can be taken away from people when they abuse them and they can also be regulated.

Our individual rights, individualism, liberal democracy, are things along with our diversity across the board and not just racially and ethnically, is what makes America exceptional as well as great. The fact that Americans can come from nothing and end up being some of the richest most successful people in the world. That can not just come from nothing but immigrate from a third world country not even speaking English when you get here and make it in America on your own and become one of our greatest citizens. But with each individual right that we have in America comes responsibility. And each individual right that we have in America is subjected to responsible commonsense regulations. Including the 2nd Amendment. Background checks doesn't take guns away from responsible, sane, competent people. Just the people who aren't responsible, sane, and competent, who would murder people with their guns and other weapons. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

The Rubin Report: Dave Rubin Interviewing David Frum- Donald Trump, Russia & Impeachment

Source:The Rubin Report- Conservative writer David Frum, talking about Donald Trump, on The Rubin Report.

“Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to David Frum (Senior Editor, The Atlantic) about his new book “Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic,” his thoughts on Trump and Russia, the possibility of impeachment, views on immigration, his political standing, and more.”

From The Rubin Report

When it comes to Donald Trump, I lean on the side that Donald Trump is not the disease itself when it comes to our political system, but he's the beneficiary of it. He's benefited from an American political system where the term politician is used as a political insult. Calling someone a politician in America now is like calling them an asshole. "That politician, you can never trust what he says." Same thing can be said about assholes, I mean what do assholes know about anything, they're assholes and speaking out of their asses are natural acts for them.

Americans tend to now hate politicians and hate politics at least in the sense the political games that politicians play. Always looking for the upper hand against their opponent, instead of doing their jobs which is governing. These are the problems, this is what can be done about it right now and it needs to be addressed right now before the situation becomes so bad that a lot of people will get hurt by it. That is how government used to work up until 15-20 years ago in America even if that meant Democrats working with Republicans together in order to make the country better.

Today politics in America is how do we blame the other side and make them look like they're unreasonable obstructionists so the voters don't like them and vote for us instead. Donald Trump didn't create this system of hyper-partisanship and gridlock, he just came in and took advantage of it with the promises that he would come in and fix the problems and make government work again. We now all know ( or at least anyone with a brain is who mentally sane ) that Donald Trump was selling Americans three months old steaks and burgers for full price and literally just selling people a lot of junk ( to put it mildly ) that he was literally bullshitting Americans in order to get into power and then profit from his presidency.

But again without the hyper-partisanship from both parties in America where you have these two large political parties literally in the business now to try to destroy the other and claim absolute power in America, instead of offering Americans a positive agenda and giving then positive reasons to vote for them and looking to govern while they're still trying to gain additional power, the Donald Trump that we see today as President would still be an actual celebrity star on TV. Because he wouldn't have a movement that he could speak to because Americans by in large wouldn't hate politicians and not distrust government.

I blame Donald Trump for his actions as President of the United States and what he did when he was running for President, as well as his private political activism with the so-called birther movement against President Barack Obama, but I don't blame him for the political system that he inherited. Even though he's made it worst and represents a threat to our federal checks and balances form of government. Trump is simply a beneficiary of a political system and government that was already there where Americans tend not to trust government and politicians and hate the two political parties because they see both parties as not much more than partisan hacks looking to destroy the other party. Instead of offering a positive agenda for why they should be elected.  

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on Blogger.

The Onion: 'Pros and Cons of Free Speech on College Campuses'

Source:The Onion- liberal democracy on campus.

"Free speech has become an increasingly contentious issue on college campuses as students, faculty, and the national media debate whether schools should impose restrictions on things like protests, guest speakers, and course material. The Onion takes a look at the pros and cons of free speech on college campuses."

From The Onion 

"The high court determined that Tom Becker's continued right to free speech was a hazard to anyone forced to listen to him." 

Source:The Onion- Tom Beckers's constitutional right to speak while drunk.

From The Onion

To be completely serious for a second ( which seems to go against everything that The Onion stands for ) a pro for being in favor of free speech on campus is that you get to learn other views and what people who don't think or look like you. Perhaps who've gotten through an entire school day at least without their favorite fancy coffee drink, perhaps don't even have a favorite fancy coffee drink and perhaps even gotten through a whole hour without staring at their smartphone, or least gotten through that hour without a jaw-dropping OMG expression on their face.

Well, that was mostly serious, but you get to hear views that are different from your own. You get to experience what living in a liberal democracy is like. What life at college is like and again we're talking about college which is supposed to be an institution of higher learning. Even in Alabama and Mississippi where perhaps their higher learning doesn't reach the top floor and in some cases struggles to get to the second floor. ( Hey, when you produce the Roy Moore's of the world, you're going to get jokes like that. )

A con I guess if you want to look at it that way and perhaps tend to look at life from a glass half empty I need I anti-depressants pills right away or I going to die, is that of course you'll hear opinions and views that you not only disagree with but find offensive. And you might actually hear views that literally are offensive and not just critical views that some narcissistic tight ass who thinks they're the only perfect person God ( unless you're an Atheist ) has created believes are offensive even if they're just critical and even accurate.

But so what, what were you expecting when you decided to go to college? You learn about life there and what life will be like once your'e out of college and can hopefully afford and more expensive and bigger place to live than you parent's basement. 

If you want to be part of world where everyone thinks and acts the same, join a cult, or move to some communist or other authoritarian state. But if you want to live in a free world you have to accept responsibilities and realities that life there is not the same for everyone and not everyone thinks and believes in the same things.

And in that world you have people who didn't get any higher learning. Perhaps that was because they went to college in Alabama or Mississippi, or were too busy staring at their smartphone, when they should've been listening to their teachers and studying. 

Freedom is not free and life certainly isn't free either. When you live in a free society you have the freedom to be yourself and think for yourself, but what comes with that is that everyone else has that same freedom that you and might not look at things and think like you. Which is also a plus because it's how people get to know each other and learn about each other. Which make freedom and diversity so great which is the ability to learn and self-improve.

George Carlin: 'Life is Worth Losing Dumb Americans'

Source:George Carlin- doing his HBO routine in 2005.

"Life Is Worth Losing - Dumb Americans - George Carlin. From HBO Life Is Worth Losing." 

Source:George Carlin

Warning! This piece might contain language that may offend people who are still living in the 1950s and forgot to move with the times in America as the rest of country moved forward without them.

Just to say one thing about George Carlin: Goddammit, George Carlin fucking cussed a lot! What the fuck was his fucking problem? What kind of asshole fucking cusses that much? God dammit, he must have been fucking pissed off. 

Not that I would ever tell George C to watch his fucking language, because someone like that who is generally that angry not just at people, but basically an entire country, probably wouldn't like that humor and perhaps not have even understood it. But he might have grasped the hypocrisy from a statement like that.

As far as stupid people in America: not saying we have a monopoly on that compared with the rest of the world. Especially with countries that don't allow women to even drive cars or show themselves in public, who murder people simply for being gay through government force. As well as terrorists who murder people simply for not being Muslim, as well as gay. 

But America might have more than our share of stupid people especially with a region of the country that values their religion over education and knowledge. That alone can create a lot of problems there when people who simply don't respect knowledge and think Jesus or whoever they pray to is all they need. That alone would qualify as stupid thinking, or lack of thinking.

See, people who don't have knowledge tend to be stupid. Knowledgable people tend to be intelligent. The actual definition of intelligent is someone who is having or showing intelligence, especially at a high level. The actually definition of stupid, is having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense. Someone who takes America to war over bogus (to be overly generous ) evidence that never existed in the first place, is the classic definition of s stupid decision. Making a decision on no real evidence and information.

Buying stuff (or in many cases junk ) that you simply don't need and are buying it perhaps only because it's a status symbol for you like buying that latest smartphone simply because it's the latest smartphone, even though you bought the latest smartphone last week, would qualify as a stupid decision. Even if it did allow you to be one of the first five people to share that latest purchase on Facebook, Twitter, or perhaps my favorite Google+. Sure! That decision made you look like totally awesome (or whatever ) for an entire five minutes. But now you have two smartphones that you're not using and still paying for both of them.

When you have a country that is as vast and diverse from all sorts of vantage points and not just racially and ethnically, a country that is also as free and individualistic as we are (at least outside of pop culture, where most people look like a clone of the latest hot celebrity ) and then you have an entire population that values their religious and cultural beliefs over knowledge, reason, and science, you're going to have a lot of stupid people. 

America has a lot of people who are literally free to do whatever they want short of hurting innocent people, including deciding to not be educated and not believe evidence and facts. This is why America at times at least can look like a national morons convention where everyone is late, because everyone went to the wrong place for the convention.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Times, on Blogger.

Victor D. Hanson: 'Rethinking Watergate'

Source:Hoover Institution- where the Watergate scandal all started.

Source:The New Democrat 

"The Watergate break-in is now 45 years old. The scandal is as distant from our own time as it was once from 1928. The median age of Americans is about 38 years old. Half of all Americans were likely born after the break-in. But Watergate is hardly ancient history.

The fumes of Watergate waft around the current FISA-gate scandal. The now septuagenarians Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, of All the President’s Men fame, are back in the news. As seasoned crusading reporters, they currently offer admonitions that Donald Trump is replaying the role of a supposedly paranoid and imperious Richard Nixon.

But is he? The two investigative journalists who first brought Watergate to public attention are certainly not wrong about parallels—but not in the way they imagine. FISA-gate is becoming Watergate turned upside down. The respective roles of the government, liberal Democrats, civil libertarians, and the White House are now reversed—and this turnaround is, in a strange way, redefining Watergate itself." 

From Victor D. Hanson 

"60 Minutes political correspondent Lesley Stahl covered Watergate 45 years ago.  She visits CBSN to detail her experience and draws some parallels to the political scandals surrounding the White House today." 

Source:CBS News- Richard M. Nixon (Republican, California) "I'm still not a crook." LOL

From CBS News

I look at Watergate now more than 45 years after the 1972 break in and almost 45 years after Congress starts to look into the the Watergate break in and the 1972 presidential election with the Senate Watergate Select Committee,  in a couple of ways.

First, just the pure stupidity of it from several vantage points and perhaps the biggest being how unnecessary it was. We know that President Richard Nixon didn’t personally order the Watergate break in. Why, because he was already ahead of Senator George McGovern ( the 1972 Democratic nominee for president ) by 20 points or more at this point during the summer of 1972.

Not so much because breaking and entering into private property is morally wrong and illegal. That is probably not the reason why President Nixon didn’t order the break in, but because it would’ve been politically stupid for him to do that. Especially with a Democratic Congress with clear majorities in both the House and Senate. With network news media and the print media being such huge forces. 

The risks of these bunglers, I mean burglars screwing up the break in and perhaps not even finding anything that President Nixon could use against Senator McGovern. Unfortunately Richard Nixon tended to operate from purely partisan political calculations, instead of morality and doing what’s morally right and so-forth. Which is one of the reasons for his downfall, along with his paranoia and lack of self-confidence.

The other thing that makes Watergate so stupid and even laughable now at this point, but perhaps by 1973 or so, is that the crew that was put together and how they were put together and actually did the Watergate operation. ( If you want to call it that ) If you’re going to order a break in of private property and you’re not personally involved in physically committing the crime yourself, you would think that you would hire professional burglars to do the operation. You could learn that just from watching any half-decent caper movie.

That you don’t hire auto mechanics to perform brain surgery. You don’t hire dentists to represent you in court when you’re being charged with murder. You hire brain surgeons to perform brain surgery, criminal defense lawyers to defend you and when you’re being charged with crimes, and you hire professional burglars to pull off break ins. 

The Watergate break in team were former CIA officers who were accustomed to working in other countries and getting information for the U.S. Government. They weren’t professional burglars or criminals of any background. 

The Watergate break in was Amateur Night at the Watergate and when these guys knew they were a helluva lot of trouble and looking at doing 20 years or more in prison, they decided to talk to the prosecutors and that is where President Nixon freaks out or perhaps before that and decides to try to cover it up.

The Nixon reelection effort, looks like a bunch of guys in high school who decide to run for class president and pick one guy to run with his friends helping him out with the campaign, With this of course being the first time that any of them are ever involved in any political campaign ever. Not that different from the Donald Trump presidential campaign of 2016. 

You have a long list of 10-15 men who worked for President Nixon during the early 1970s either for the Administration or reelection campaign, who ended up in prison. Who pre-Nixon and perhaps post-Nixon were by en-large good, intelligent, moral, productive people, but who got in way over their heads during this presidential campaign and simply made a lot of horrible decisions that put them all in prison. Watergate is a tragedy because of how stupid and unnecessary it was and the damage that these people did to themselves.

The Atlantic: Helen Keller- 'The Modern Woman Puts Her Husband in The Kitchen- 1932

Source: The Atlantic

Source: The Atlantic: Helen Keller- 'The Modern Woman Puts Her Husband in The Kitchen'

It you were born let's say yesterday or at the very least have a personality and even intelligence level that makes you seem so young, naive, inexperienced, and innocent that you come off as someone who was born yesterday and perhaps don't even remember the 1990s, unlike some of us who were actually adults during a lot of that decade, 1932 and the 1930s could seem like a century ago. Like explaining the civil war to a 11th grade high school American history class in 1985 or something.

But there was a time even well before I was born where even though there was never any law saying that women weren't allowed to work and become professionals in America or simply low-skilled low-income employees or blue-collar middle class employees where you only needed a high school diploma to get a good job in America, women weren't expected to work at all outside of the house in America. They weren't seen as slaves to their men which is what Africans were pre-civil war in America in the South, but perhaps just a step up. And at the very least were seen as servants to their men and children.

Joe Wilson would go out and work during the day earning a good living for himself, his wife, and kids. His wife Mary Wilson would stay home and raise their kids and take care of the house. The cooking, cleaning, getting the kids to and from school, etc. The whole family would meet in the dining room at around 7PM for dinner or perhaps Joe would take his wife and kids out for dinner to celebrate his new raise or promotion or whatever it might be.

That is what life was like in America before 1965 ( I still wasn't born yet ) or so. Joe worked and Mary stayed home at least once they were married and took care of the family and household. And there was never any government law requiring that women stayed home while men would work outside of the home. It was just a cultural norm, or a Phyllis Schlafly marijuana high or fantasy come true.

Not saying that all Christians are fundamentalists, Evangelical, or even Protestant, but there is a wing in that religion that view this period the 1930s through the 1950s as their Utopia. Their Christian Utopia where America was moral and before what they view as moral crisis that has been plaguing America as they would see it since the 1960s. Not sure a crisis can last 50 years or more, at some point the crisis has to stop and a new way of doing things and new norm emerges instead. But fundamentalist Christians or Christian-Nationalists, point to these 30 years from 1930 to 1960 or so as America's golden age where everything was utopian for them.

The Rubin Report: David Frum: ‘Issues With Conservatism, Health Care & Donald Trump’

Source:The Rubin Report- Conservative columnist David Frum.

"Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to David Frum (Senior Editor, The Atlantic) about his background, his unique conservative views, problems with conservatism, the health care debate, Trump, the state of the modern left, multiculturalism, and more."  

From The Rubin Report

The first part of this interview Dave Rubin and David Frum are talking about Canada and Canadian politics and what I'm interested here since David Frum is Conservative ( as he puts it ) is that what it means to be a Canadian Conservative is even different from what it means to even be a British Conservative. And certainly different from what it means to be an American Conservative whether you're talking about Conservative-Libertarians ( the real Conservatives in America ) and extremely different from what it means to a a Religious-Conservative. Whether you're talking about Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever else when it comes to Religious-Conservatives.

Canadian Conservatives are to the right of British Conservatives. British Conservatives operate in a socialist unitarian social democratic state in the United Kingdom, where Conservatives there in many cases are just less socialist than the Labour Party. Especially Jermey Corbyn ( the Leader of the Labour Party ) who represents the Far-Left of the Labour Party. But Canadian Conservatives are to the left of both Conservative-Libertarians on economic policy at least, and to the left of Christian-Conservatives in America are on social policy.

The main differences between Canadian Conservatives from lets say the Goldwater-Reagan Conservative-Libertarian wing of the Republican Party, is that Canadian Conservatives believe limited government, fiscal responsibility, a large private sector where private enterprise and economic freedom are encouraged, but where there is a large generous welfare state for people who truly need it. That taxes and regulations on businesses should be fairly low, but individuals are taxed fairly high to fund their welfare state like their national health insurance system.

When I think of a Conservative and yes of course I'm looking at this from the perspective of an American and maybe if I had duel citizenships I could look at Conservative from multiple national perspectives, but just as an American I look at Conservative from a U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, individual rights, traditionalist, standpoint. That the job of government is to defend the republic and defend our individual rights. Encourage individual freedom instead of using big government to try to manage people's lives for them either from an economic or personal perspective. Sounds very similar to my own liberal politics but we differ on the role of government as it relates to welfare policy. But tend to share very similar if not identical principles.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on Blogger.

The Onion: 'Dozens of Other Countries That Interfered With 2016 Election Annoyed Russia Getting All The Credit'

Source:The Onion- The Real Vladimir Putin - President of The Russian Federation

"WASHINGTON—Complaining that U.S. investigations into foreign interference in the election have gotten almost everything wrong, officials from dozens of countries around the world expressed irritation Friday that all of the credit for meddling in the 2016 presidential race was going to Russia.

Resentful operatives from Serbia, Uruguay, Swaziland, and 45 other nations said they were incredibly annoyed that Kremlin-backed computer hackers and dark-money financiers were receiving all the media attention, while their own far superior efforts to undermine the U.S. electoral process had so far received no recognition at all." 

Source:The Onion 

"'The Onion' Has Obtained Hundreds Of Classified Documents From The Trump White House. An anonymous source in the West Wing has provided 'The Onion' with a trove of top secret executive orders, intelligence memos, intercepted emails, and dozens of other documents that provide an exclusive and shocking glimpse into the Trump Administration." 

Source:The Onion-  The Donald Trump. Thank God there is only one. 

From The Onion

When I think of this Onion article, I go back to I believe the first Hillary Clinton-Donald Trump presidential debate in 2016 where someone asked Trump did he believe Russia was responsible for hacking into the election campaigns and hacking into the DNC emails and Trump said: "It could be Russia, it could be a lot of other countries, but it could also be some 400 pound man lying in bed in New Jersey or somewhere who is responsible for the hacking. We don't know who is responsible for it." In that same debate Hillary called Donald a puppet for Vladimir Putin. Truer statements have never come out of Hillary's mouth than that. The only dictator in the world that President Trump won't criticize is the Russian dictator President Vladimir Putin.

To say Donald Trump doesn't operate, live or even have visited the same planet that sane competent American call Planet Earth, is like saying that Wisconsin tends to see snow in January. Or it can get hot in the Arizona desert during the summer. Seattle tends to see some rain and overcast every year and people there like coffee and are into new technology. Jazz music is popular in New Orleans, Washington especially Congress and the White House, has more than their share of bullshit and hot air, as well as humidity. You would be doing the best imitation of Captain Obvious the world has ever seen to the point that you would be for not only a Golden Globe but an Oscar on the same night.

Big Don (as Little Marci Rubio calls Donald Trump) simply sees things that aren't there. And that's assuming he's not an complete idiot and is being straight up when he says he doesn't believe Russia didn't interfere in the 2016 elections ( because his good friend Vladimir Putin told him so ) even though his own National Security Council and his own intelligence community where President Trump is personally responsible for the appointments of all of these national security and intelligence officials to work for President Trump and give him the best national security and intelligence advice that they possibly can. What they're telling the President and hold him more than a year ago is that Russia interfered into the 2016 presidential election.

But Donald Trump with an ego the size of the Sahara Desert simply can't bring his mind around to accepting that, because that would imply that Russia is partially responsible for the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States instead of Trump deserving all the credit ( or blame ) for that himself. Any responsible, sane, competent, intelligent, reality based, ( not reality TV ) person would've acknowledged as soon the evidence came out perhaps as early as November or December of 2016, that of course Russia interfered with the 2016 elections as Donald Trump said himself he wanted Russia to hack into Hillary Clinton's emails and releases the non released emails during the summer that year, because that is where the evidence points to.

Responsible, sane, competent, intelligent, reality based ( not reality TV ) people have their reputations to protect and don't want to be perceived as not knowing what's going on and don't want to be divorced from reality. Like a gold digger who wants to divorce their wealthy spouse as soon as they have a lot of their money. Good, responsible, intelligent, sane people, don't want to be seen as idiots. 

President Trump apparently doesn't have that problem to worry about because he could care less if he's seen by an idiot even by people who personally work for him ( and that is already happening, just ask his Secretary of State ) as long as he gets what he wants. Which is to perform and entertain and try to convince people of seeing things that simply don't exist, because those perceptions or lies make him look better than he deserves to look.

Donald Trump doesn't live in a reality based world, but in a reality TV based world known as Donald Trump. With the latest series taking place at The White House as President of the United States. Some people have suggested ( me included ) that the name of President Trump's latest reality TV show is Amateur Night at The White House. He sees and acknowledges what he wants to even if those things obviously don't exist. Which in many ways is very funny and how you get an Onion article written about you and how someone writes a piece for their blog about you with that Onion link. But in most if not every other way it's very sad and dangerous to have a President of the United States who is so far divorced from reality and not able to make decisions based on reality and the best available evidence at the time.

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.