History: 'How Did Socialism Become a Dirty Word in America?'

Source:History- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) The Leader of the Socialist Party in America?

"Before it became a dirty word, socialism was relatively popular in the United States. So, what happened? #HistoryChannel
Subscribe for more HISTORY:
http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...

Read More: http://po.st/socialist_party

 Check out exclusive HISTORY content:
 Website - http://www.history.com
 /posts
 Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/History
 Twitter - https://twitter.com/history"

From History

From Wikipedia

Source:Socialist Alternative- "Movie Review: American Socialist: The Life and Times"

"Eugene Victor Debs (November 5, 1855 – October 20, 1926) was an American socialist, political activist, trade unionist, one of the founding members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and five times the candidate of the Socialist Party of America for President of the United States.^[1] Through his presidential candidacies as well as his work with labor movements, Debs eventually became one of the best-known socialists living in the United States." 

Source:National Review- "Henry Wallace: Unsung Hero of the Left"

From Wikipedia 

"Henry Agard Wallace (October 7, 1888 – November 18, 1965) was an American politician, journalist, and farmer who served as the 11th U.S. secretary of agriculture, the 33rd vice president of the United States, and the 10th U.S. secretary of commerce. He was also the presidential nominee of the left-wing Progressive Party in the 1948 election." 

Source:AZ Quotes- Truer words have never been said: socialism and liberalism have never been the same things 

From Wikipedia 

"Norman Mattoon Thomas (November 20, 1884 – December 19, 1968) was an American Presbyterian minister who achieved fame as a socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America." 

Source:Bill Moyers- U.S. Senator George McGovern: Democratic Socialist, South Dakota: the Bernie Sanders Socialist of his era 

From Wikipedia 

"George Stanley McGovern (July 19, 1922 – October 21, 2012) was an American historian, author, U.S. representative, U.S. senator, and the Democratic Party presidential nominee in the 1972 presidential election." 

Source:Imgur- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders: Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont 

From Wikipedia 

"A self-described democratic socialist and progressive, Sanders supports labor rights and emphasizes reversing economic inequality.^[4] He advocates for universal and single-payer healthcare, paid parental leave, as well as tuition-free tertiary education. On foreign policy, Sanders broadly supports reducing military spending, pursuing more diplomacy and international cooperation, and putting greater emphasis on labor rights and environmental concerns when negotiating international trade agreements." 

The video makes it clear why the words socialist and socialism are unpopular. Everything from the end of World War I and the start of the Soviet Union with their communist revolution in Russia, to Senator Bernie Sanders and his presidential campaigns today. With the start of the Cold War with Russia after World War II and the so-called red scare, with Congress first with the House of Representatives in the late 1940s and the later with the Senate in the 1950s investigating Socialists and Communists in the U.S. Government and the rest of the country. 

Before the rise of the Millennial Generation in America, when Americans thought of socialist or socialism they automatically assumed people were talking about Communists and other leftist authoritarians, wether they be in Russia or anywhere else in the world. And Americans regardless if they're on the Right or Left in America and somewhere in between tend to hate authoritarianism. Even self-described Socialists in America whether they're Bernie Sanders or others don't view themselves as Communists or other leftist authoritarians. They might have a hard time speaking ill of Communists and communism and leftist authoritarianism whether it's in Cuba or Venezuela, but they themselves are not Communists. 

But when Millennials think of Socialists, they think of politicians that are going to give them a lot of free stuff ( another way of saying welfare programs ) like health care, health insurance, college, day care, etc. And take on greed in corporate America, as well as tax the rich, but not take heir property away and force them to work in work camps and other horrible places that we saw in Soviet Russia and in North Korea today. Whether you view socialist and socialism as either positive or negative, a lot of that is generational. If you grew up during the Cold War and in my case at the end of the Cold War just starting high school when the Cold War came to an end in the early 1990s, you're probably not a fan of Socialists and socialism, because you tend to think of Communists and communism. But if you weren't even born until the 1990s, when you think of Socialists and socialism, you tend to think of Europe and the social democracies there. Which is a helluva lot different from the communist states. 

Communism, really was the biggest threat to America, American freedom, our individualism and individual rights in the 20th Century. And of course a lot of Americans in and out of government went too far with their anti-communism and outing people simply for having Far-Left beliefs whether they were Democratic Socialists or Communists. But the Cold War really was about liberal democracy versus communism and was a war that America, Britain, and Europe really had to win. 

And because of this good people were put down and denied access in society simply because of their Far-Left beliefs to the point that American Leftists were scared as hell to ever be tabled as a Socialist ( even if they were ) for fear that being known as a Socialist could ruin their careers and lives. And preferred other political labels like liberal or progressive even though their own politics was much further left than both liberal and progressive. Which is how socialist and socialism became dirty words in America, because Americans didn't want their lives ruined simply because of their socialist politics.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

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

American Enterprise Institute: Welfare Reform- Why? 1976

Source:American Enterprise Institute- Paul MacAvoy: member of President Gerald Ford's Council of Economic Advisers. 

"May 20, 1976: This AEI Round Table brings together four experts to discuss whether major modifications are needed in the American public welfare system. Why have welfare costs skyrocketed in recent years? Do these rising costs prove that our welfare machinery is defective? Are there more efficient and more equitable ways to provide for the nation's poor? Can our present programs be improved by minor changes or is a sweeping overhaul required? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the negative income tax? And can proposals to reform our welfare system win political acceptance?

Panelists:
Wilbur J. Cohen — dean of the School of Education at the University of Michigan
Barber Conable, Jr. — Representative (R-New York)
Paul MacAvoy — a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers
Abraham Ribicoff — Senator (D-Connecticut)

Moderator:
Robert Bork — solicitor general of the United States

Host:
Peter Hackes"

From the American Enterprise Institute

This is the perfect debate that we should be having now today especially when we now have Socialists and socialism on the rise in America in and outside of the Democratic Party, who believe that people shouldn't be forced to work and not just that, but that we should even pay people ( meaning taxpayers ) to not work and pay them well if they choose not to work. Even if they simply don't want to work and would refer to stay home and collect a public assistance check. When what we should be doing instead is not just encouraging low-income and low-skilled Americans to not just work, but get a good education so they can get themselves a good job and not need any type of public assistance at all to pay their bills.

I'll give you just one example of why Progressive is different from Socialist and why Progressives are different from Socialists, and why progressivism is different from socialism, even though there are many of examples of why these two ideological factions are different. And they're not the same political faction with just two different labels. That Conservative is actually different from Libertarian, Theocrat, and Nationalist. And that Progressive is different from Socialist and Communist.

Welfare and poverty in general are the perfect issues to talk about when you're talking about what it means to be a Progressive, because if you're actually a Progressive you believe not just in progress, but creating progress through government action. So if you have a large population of poor people in your country and have a lot of poverty and you're a Progressive, you want to see some progress there. You want poverty to go down dramatically assuming you can't actually eliminate it altogether. Instead of having people in poverty with a public assistance check and other public assistance checks which was the system before the 1996 Welfare To Work Law, you want to actually move people out of poverty and no longer be eligible of public assistance, simply because they make too much money and no longer live in poverty.

I'm not saying that solving the poverty issue in America is easy because if it were it would've solved in the 1960s and we no longer have 1-5 Americans who are eligible for public assistance whether they're working or not. But if we empower not just encourage, but empower low-income Americans to not just work, but to go to school and finish or further their education and even help them get themselves a good job after they now have the skills to get themselves a good job, you'll see poverty go down in America, because you'll now have a well-skilled workforce in your country and there would be no reasons for people to live in poverty, other than that they're lazy or perhaps just irresponsible and simply don't want a good education and a good job. But those people we shouldn't be subsidizing as taxpayers anyway and instead subsidize Americans who don't have what they need right now to live a quality, independent life, but want to be able to do that for themselves.

For people who view themselves as fiscal Conservatives, ( which seems to be a dying breed in Washington right now: fiscal Conservatives ) who are concern about the budget deficit and national debt, you should  be interested in not just welfare reform and welfare to work, because with a lower and low poverty rate in America, you would not just have more people working in America, but more people paying income and payroll taxes and fewer people collecting public assistance. And a lesser need for people to not just work to take care of themselves and their families, but to also subsidize people who either don't work, or work but don't earn enough money to take care of themselves and their families.

Today, we have a budget deficit and national debt that are too big, but we have an economic deficit as well that's part of the income gap in the country where we have too many people who are simply too poor to be able to support themselves in this country and as a result are dependent on both private and  public charity, and being able to work multiple jobs ( if they're working at all ) in order to support themselves.

These are all reasons why we should not only encouraging people who are physically capable of working at all, but going back to school and getting themselves a good jobs. These are all things that we can do with the current public assistance system in this country. Which would be great for our economy have 50-60 million more Americans with good skills and good jobs in this country. But long-term would also be much better for our fiscal outlook. But the best thing of all would be to have all of these people who now have good skills and good jobs. 

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

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

Yaron Brook: 'Alexandria O. Cortez and The Principled Left'

Source:Yaron Brook- U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez: self-described Democratic Socialist 

"This video was created by Christian Jackson. Clipped from The Yaron Brook Show: Jesse Lee Peterson, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, & MGTOW streamed on Jan. 13 2019."

From Yaron Brook

I agree with Yaron Brook at least in this sense: the establishment Democratic Party has been moving left ever since the 1930s with Franklin Roosevelt when the Democratic Party started adapting progressive goals and values. It started first with public safety net for people that truly needed it with things like Social Security and Unemployment Insurance. And then moved in the 1960s to civil rights like expanding the safety net with Medicare. 

With the Republican Party essentially trying to catch up and essentially saying: "yeah, we support those things too" as those policies and programs becoming popular. The Great Society and civil rights were exceptions to that where without Republicans especially in the Northwest and Midwest, civil rights and parts of of the Great Society never get passed. Because the Democratic Party still had right-wing Neo-Confederates in the party that opposed civil rights laws and saw non-Europeans in America as second-class citizens and in some cases not even as citizens or even as human beings. 

But really since Ronald Reagan was President, the Republican Party has been playing catch up to the Democrats on a lot of economic issues when it comes to the safety net. And saying: "we support these things too, but we would run them differently and introduce competition to them." Instead of saying that: "we don't need these public programs at all and we should just leave the economic policies up to the private sector."  

Things are different now both in the Democratic Party, but the Republican Party as well. Democrats at least the base of the party is no longer interested in the progressive safety net for people who truly need it. They want a universal, socialize welfare state where most if not ell workers benefits in this country with health care just being a part of that being provided for not just by government, but through the Federal Government. And putting the Federal Government in charge of making sure that every single American has what they would need to live well in the country and they're very honest about this. 

With the Republican Leadership saying, "we believe in all of the public insurance programs that we currently have, but we want to put them on a sound financial footing and let the states run them." Instead of going into the opposite direction ( which is what Yaron Brook is arguing ) and saying that this is not the job of government, or at least not the job of the Federal Government. And we should leave it up to the private sector to handle employee benefits and take care of the needy in the country. 

The Democratic Party has made it their goal to get not just every single racial and ethnic minority to vote for them, but every single woman who at least who is college educated and professional to vote for them, but they want to every single young voter to vote for them regardless of race, ethnicity, and gender. And the way to get young voters to vote for you is be being romantic and very idealist and saying that we ( meaning government ) can solve every societal problem known to man if we just put our minds to it ( meaning the Federal Government ) and promise every single social program that they can come up with and figure out the details later. Like how to pay for those programs. 

With the Republican Party instead of going in the opposite direction and instead saying that: "there real limits to what government can and should try to do for the people and we can only tax so much while maintaining a strong economy." They instead try to come up with the best and most popular alternatives on the Right that they can get away with it. And try to hold onto power by trying to contain the Far-Left in the country, as well as passing so-called voter ID laws and gerrymandering to prevent young Democrats from voting in competitive races.   

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

Dandelion Salad: Ellen Brown: ‘Funding A U.S. Green Deal Without Raising Taxes’

Source:Bart Everson- Via Flickr. 

Source:The New Democrat

From Ellen Brown:

“As alarm bells sound over the advancing destruction of the environment, a variety of Green New Deal proposals have appeared in the US and Europe, along with some interesting academic debates about how to fund them. Monetary policy, normally relegated to obscure academic tomes and bureaucratic meetings behind closed doors, has suddenly taken center stage.

The 14 page proposal for a Green New Deal submitted to the US House of Representatives by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez does not actually mention Modern Monetary Theory, but that is the approach currently capturing the attention of the media—and taking most of the heat. The concept is good: abundance can be ours without worrying about taxes or debt, at least until we hit full productive capacity. But the devil is in the details….

MMT advocates say the government does not need to collect taxes before it spends. It actually creates new money in the process of spending it; and there is plenty of room in the economy for public spending before demand outstrips supply, driving up prices.”

Source:Dandelion Salad:

Ellen Brown is right about one thing: the U.S. Government doesn’t have to actually collect the taxes that it’s owed before it spends money.

Back when Congress and the President actually passed budgets and appropriations bills ( when dinosaurs were still around, ha, ha, ) they would agree to what the U.S. Government would spend and how to collect the money that it spent. Then most of that money would be spent and the taxes would come in later.

If Congress and the President passed a budget, all the appropriations, and a tax bill today, the revenue to pay for that government spending that has already been spent wouldn’t actually come in until the following year, or at least not all of it. Similar to how individuals pay for things on credit: we purchase items on credit and then pay those bills to our credit card company at the end of the month. If we made those payments, we didn’t have any debt. But if we didn’t make those payments, we would now have a credit card debt.

When Congress appropriates money for the Executive to spend, that money gets spent before the taxes are actually collected. And if the Executive takes in more money than was actually spent, ( which happens about as often as the Cleveland Indians win the World Series ) then the U.S. Government has a budget surplus. But if the Executive spent more money than it collected in either taxes or tariffs or a combination of both, then it runs a deficit for that year and that deficit is added to the national debt. Which has happened every year in this country since 2002. ( That should give you an idea of how often that is )

What Ellen Brown is arguing for is that the U.S. Government could fund a Green New Deal ( as its called ) simply though monetary policy that would fund it by itself and you wouldn’t have to borrow more money or raise new taxes to pay for it. If that were true, government wouldn’t need a tax code, taxes, or an Internal Revenue Service, because it could just pay for all of its operations with Treasury printing all the money. The reason why we have a national debt of 22 trillion-dollars ( get your head all the way around that number ) is because Congress and the Executive has been borrowing money ever since the Federal Republic was created and has been running a budget deficit almost every year since the 1960s, because it almost always takes in less tax revenue than it spends. With the last four years of the Clinton Administration, the last year of the Johnson Administration, and one year during the 1950s under President Dwight Eisenhower.

“Democrats are introducing framework for what they call the Green New Deal. It addresses climate change and how the U.S. can make clean energy a priority over 10 years. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey have championed the measure. CBS News chief congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes joins CBSN to explain.”

Source:CBS News: U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez- Proposing New Green Deal To Fight Climate Change - U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez: at the 2019 State of The Union 

The Washington Post: 'William Barr: Must Release Full Mueller Report'

Source:The Washington Post- Special Counsel Robert Mueller: release the damn report!

"The country deserves to see the results of the Mueller investigation into election interference. The Post editorial board says we ned to know if the President was involved in a crime."

Source:The Washington Post

Source:The Washington Post- President Donald Trump: "no really, I'm not a crook" LOL

As someone who isn't a lawyer I must say that Donald Trump out of all the people who've ever been investigated before at least by the Federal Government, he looks the most guilty. And that's assuming he's innocent of everything he's been investigated of. Which granted is not a safe assumption. I mean if I just pulled one of the greatest if not the greatest if not greatest upsets in American presidential election history and my presidential campaign was under investigation even though I personally knew I wasn't involved in any personal crimes relating to it my campaign, I would welcome an investigation both personally, but as a patriot as well. Especially when we know that a hostile power like Vladimir Putin and his Russian Federation interfered into the election. And I would want it for several reasons: 

One, to personally clear me and to not have this over my head when I'm running for reelection. 

Two, to figure out what the hell actually happened so it can be addressed and it doesn't happen again. 

Three, to figure out how to prevent this from happening in the future. 

Source:The Advocate- President Donald Trump: "I'm not a crook! LOL

Four, to set a precent here that future President's would hopefully follow that when foreign countries especially hostile ones try to interfere into our elections and they know that they're personally innocent, but perhaps perhaps who are close to them aren't completely innocent and need to be investigated for that. But again to figure out exactly what happened, so we can stop it and prevent it from happening in the future. I wouldn't wait for my Deputy Attorney General to appoint the Special Counsel, I would consult my Vice President and Chief of Staff, as well as the Attorney General and order the investigation myself. 

But what does Donald Trump do: instead of acting like a victim of mistaken identity or false accusation, he pulls a Richard Nixon Watergate play and tries to cover up it up and personally obstruct the investigation. Not with any official actions and we know that now, but through public means by how he talks about it and tries to convince the people who are under real investigation and in serious trouble that he has their back and is still on their side, that they're getting a raw deal and plays with pardons like baseball players play with baseballs ( sorry, but it's that time of year ) and tosses them around in the air for the helluva it. 

Americans have the right to know about and see Robert Mueller's report for a couple of reasons: 

One, we paid for the damn thing and have a right to know if our President is a crook or not ( to paraphrase President Richard Nixon ) and is our President has been bought off by either the Russian Federation or the Saudi Kingdom. 

Two, we have a right to know if a hostile power not only has damaging information on our President or not, but how exactly did they interfere in our elections or not. To what success and they may have and why did they did that. How come President Vladimir Putin wanted Donald Trump to be President of the United States. 

If President Donald Trump, is completely innocent here and Russia really does have nothing on in and this kissass routine that he has for Vladimir Putin is nothing more than innocent, inexperienced, amateur bad judgment on his part and he really does believe that the way you get Vladimir Putin's Russia to act like a civilized player on the world stage is by being soft on them rhetorically and go out-of-your-way to  either excuse what Russia does or put America on the same level as Russia and say: "we do bad thing too" then releasing Mueller Report makes perfect sense on Donald Trump's part, because it can only help him because he's innocent and would be doing American people ( that's all the people, not just Donald Trump's base ) a real public service. But that's probably not what's going to happen here.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The WAWG Blog: Andy Hailey- American Socialism: ‘Equally Empowers & Protecting All US Citizens’

Source:Volitairenet- A little history of American socialism 

Source:The New Democrat

SourceThe WAWG Blog

What Andy Hailey laid out in his piece was American progressivism which the New Deal, Great Society, Eisenhower’s national infrastructure program, the civil rights law, the Nixon environmental laws. Things that Theodore Roosevelt advocated for when he was President and after his presidency, that President Woodrow Wilson also advocated for when he was President when it came to the safety net in this country.

Source:Wikipedia- Democratic Socialists of America 

 I’ve blogged about this many times before, but progressivism is not the same as socialism however you define socialism. A lot of aspects of socialism are actually very regressive when you’re talking about communism or Neo-Communism that you see in Venezuela, where the national state isn’t in complete control of the country unlike in Cuba.

Progressives, believe in the private market and private enterprise, free trade, the rule of law, progressive taxation, but not universal high taxation, fiscal responsibility even,  ( President Lyndon Johnson had a balanced budget in 1968 ) but they also believe in a social insurance net for people who fall on hard times. The safety net from the Progressive, is different from the welfare state of the Socialist who says that all employee benefits should be provided for by the government, instead of employers. The Progressive, just wants public assistance programs like Unemployment for people who truly need it. Unlike the Socialist who wants welfare programs to be universal regardless of income.

Regardless of what you hear from the so-called mainstream media today when they’re talking about Congressional Democrats and other leftist Democrats that they call Progressives, whether it’s Bernie Sanders or Alexandria O. Cortez, or any other members of the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus, these people are Socialists, not Progressives. They believe that American progressivism hasn’t gone far enough and we now need a welfare state and government big enough to take care of the people. Which is different from progressivism which advocates for a social insurance system for the people who truly need it. While at the same time we encourage Americans to be as economically independent as possible so the resources are always there for the people who truly need it.

“In other industrialized countries, movement towards a democratic form of socialism has been strong enough to win national elections. So why hasn’t socialism ever become a powerful force in American politics? There are lots of reasons, as well as younger generations who align with socialist ideals that may bring the necessary gusto. NewsHour Weekend Special Correspondent Jeff Greenfield reports.”

Source:PBS NewsHour: Jeff Greenfield- Is Socialism Having Its Moment in U.S. Elections - When the Socialist Party was  a major factor in American politics.

Commentary Magazine: Abe Greenwald: 'Our Socialist Socialites'

Source:Commentary Magazine- The Democratic Socialists, as well as Hipsters of America. LOL!

"If there’s confusion about what socialism means in today’s America it should be cleared up by Simon van Zuylen-Wood’s recent article on the hip socialists of New York City. Socialism is mostly a scene—a loosely organized assemblage of youngish people who are connected by a shared aesthetic. That’s pretty much it."

From Commentary Magazine

"Provided to YouTube by The Orchard Enterprises

Socialist Socialite · Tricks & Sleeves

Locked out of Space"

Source:Tricks & Sleeves: Socialist Socialite- Hum, I'm seeing a tiger on The Moon: now I know I'm high. LOL

From Tricks & Sleeves

Source:Real Clear Politics- Yeah, right!!! LOL 

It's not everyday that I agree with anything that is written by Commentary Magazine, except when they're critiquing both the Far-Left and Far-Right in America which is what they do along with National Review as two of the last of the great Center-Right publications in America, along with The Wall Street Journal and a few others. The reason why I'm on the Commentary email list is to see articles like this where Abe Greenwald compares the modern socialist movement in America with a social movement, I want to thank God ( even though I'm Agnostic ) for Commentary.

Source:Science Matters- Welcome to the modern New-Left 

Comparing Socialists with Socialites especially younger Socialists is brilliant, because socialism ( however you define it ) is not just a political movement, but it's a social movement. And I mean social in the sense about people socializing with each other. not socializing businesses ( necessarily ) but people getting together for not just a common purpose, but getting together because they have a lot of things in common.

And I'll give a great example of that: I'm paraphrasing and even rephrasing here, but it's the old expression that you're socialist when you're younger and somewhat naive, but as you get older and enter the real world in your career and you settle down, you get married, you have kids you become much more conservative ( in the classic and real sense ) especially with your own money and realize that those high tax rates that you were advocating for and even demonstrating for in your 20s, might not seem so groovy or awesome anymore ( depending on your era but now seem far out or far-left, pun intended ) and seem like they're too much.

And you realize that capitalism, is pretty damn good and is the reason why you have the good job that you have today, are able to own your own home, don't have to rely on the government for your news and information, are able to socialize and assemble with whoever you want, whenever you want, without fear of being locked up simply because of who you're socializing with, can afford to have and raise kids now, etc.

That we all grow up as a country as we enter our mid 30s and get even older and realize we all have bills to pay and if we don't want to be dependent on government or pay high tax rates for our economic survival, we not only have to work hard, but need to be very productive and good at our jobs. And the way to do these things is through the capitalist, private enterprise, liberal democratic order and world. Not by trying to overthrow the current government either through democratic or revolutionary means.

Whether it was the Hippies from the New-Left of the 1960s and 1970s or what was Occupy Wall Street from 2011-12, to the Bernie Sanders Movement of today, or the Beatniks from the Silent Generation from the 1950s we've always had at least since the 50s a movement of young hipster radicals who are the coolest and hippest people around, as well as the most politically radical as well, at least coming from the Left.

Hipsters who are not only devoted to their political causes ( until they grow up and enter the real world ) but who are dedicated to their social movement and culture and being the coolest person around who is always part of the current hipster wave if not on top of it. Who look down at people who hard for a living and are successful in life and just view them as part of the imperial, fascist capitalist regime. ( I'm a little rusty with my 1960s and 1970s New-Left vocabulary )

Socialism, has never just been a political movement and it's never just been a political movement in America either. The hippest people in America and outside of America are either Socialists or people who pretend to be Socialists, but in real-life are very wealthy and have made a lot of money for themselves who go out-of-their-way to avoid paying high taxes. And I'm thinking of the Jane Fonda's of the world and other so-called Hollywood Leftists who has been independently wealthy at least since the early 70s if not longer from her great career in Hollywood.

So-called Hollywood Leftists and other hipster Socialists have been around forever and just goes to my point that the coolest people around tend to be Socialists, not that they're aren't on hipsters on the Right: Libertarians, are a great example of that, but the coolest people around tend to at least officially view themselves as one type of Socialist or another. But along with Hollywood Leftists I tend to not take them very seriously and have much respect for them with Bernie Sanders and few others being exceptions to that.

Because again for a lot of these people being a Socialist tends to be a phase for them, but also the most left amongst us in America also tend to be the hippest and are in on all the latest trends  and in on all the latest fashion statements and if anything author those statements themselves whether it's clothing, new technology, coffee, marijuana, whatever it might be. All these great things that come from our capitalist, private enterprise system.

So-called hipster leftists are like the environmentalists who drives a SUV, or the animal rights activist who wears leather jackets and other leather clothing: I mean, who do they think there're fooling or even bullshitting. But Socialists have always represented more than just a political movement in America and outside of America and always will.

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

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

CATO Institute: Michael Tanner- 'Democratic Primary Voters Turn To Socialism'

Source:National Review- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders: Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont. 

"Outside the media and political circles that follow her every move, few probably noticed or cared when Alexandra Ocasio‐​Cortez pronounced capitalism “irredeemable.” But what are we to make of the refusal of former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper — supposedly the moderate in the Democratic field — to admit that he was a capitalist? Speaking on MSNBC’s Morning Joe last week, Hickenlooper turned aside several direct questions about whether he was a capitalist before allowing that “some aspects” of capitalism, like small business, “probably work.” And what about the fact that 77‐​year‐​old avowed socialist Bernie Sanders is in a statistical tie for the Democratic nomination?"

From the CATO Institute

"Democrats’ hard left turn to socialism. 2012 GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain discusses future of the Democratic Party."

Source:FOX Business- Not sure that Herman Cain is the best spokesman on the Democratic Party, but I don't work for FOX News. Thank God! 

From FOX Business

Source:FOX News- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez: two self-described Democratic Socialist members of Congress 

This is a great a timely piece from CATO's Michael Tanner, because I was watching The Lead with Jake Tapper in CNN yesterday afternoon, ( you can do that when you work from your desk and office ) and they were talking about this exact same issue.

Tapper, asked Conservative CNN political analyst  Amanda Carpenter basically the exact same question and she responded something to the effect of why the Democratic Party is now embracing socialism and she talked about the primary voters in the Democratic Party and their support of socialism.

Karen Finney, who is a respected Democratic strategist and CNN political analyst said something like: "This is not true since only one declared Democratic presidential candidate is a Socialist." That person being Senator Bernie Sanders, who is no longer the only self-described Democratic Socialist in Congress with several Democratic Socialists getting elected to the House last year. He's not even the only Socialist in the Senate, just the only self-described Socialist. which is very different.

CNN's Karen Finney, completely missed the point yesterday ( perhaps intentionally ) about Socialists and socialism in the Democratic Party. I realize that socialist and socialism are still scary words within the Democratic Party Leadership and establishment that Finney is part of, because when they think of those two words they remember George McGovern and the McGovernites in the 1970s and the rise of the New-Left in the late 60s and 70s. And all the negative stereotypes that come from being both a Socialist and a Democrat, especially Socialist-Democrat.

But socialist and socialism are not scary words with young Democrats and young Independents who are considering voting Democratic in 2020 and voted Democratic overwhelmingly in 2018.

When your current frontrunner at least as far as your declared presidential candidates is polling at 30% and leads every one else by at least double figures which is what Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is doing right now for 2020, you not just have more than one Socialist in your party, but you have a someone who probably represents 30% of the party if not 1/3 or more than that if the Jill Stein voters were to come out for Senator Sanders next year instead of Dr. Stein, you not only just have more than one Socialist in your party, which is stating the obvious anyway since the Democratic Party has always had Socialists in their party whether they're self-described or not, but you have a socialist faction inside of your party.

The Democratic Party today now has a large block of Democrats including Democratic Socialists voters, who embrace the ideas of Socialists and socialism and want to see those policies put into place in this country. That's just the state of the Democratic Party right now whether the Karen Finney's and other members of the Democratic Party Leadership are ready to acknowledge that or not.

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

Knowledge Hub: 'History of Prohibition- Why It Failed?'

Source:Knowledge Hub- Big Government, is coming for you. 

"People like booze. Now. But there was a time alcohol was a matter of debate and was made illegal. Here is why it failed.

Music by:No Sustain. Written and Edited by Tyler Franklin"

From Knowledge Hub

.

Source:Google Sites- Yes, please end the War on Drugs 

As someone who is a nondrinker ( when it comes to alcohol ) I believe I have a lot of credibility when it comes to alcohol and other prohibitions, simply because I'm not looking to keep products like alcohol, tobacco, sugar, salt, caffeine, and any other current drugs that Americans consumer that are currently legal simply so I can continue to consume them, but because I don't believe they should be illegal. I don't want to legalize marijuana and decriminalize harder narcotics because I want to consume them, but because I don't believe people should be put in prison or even jail simply for consuming or possessing these products.

I simply as a Liberal don't believe that people should be arrested and put in jail simply for doing or consuming things that are dangerous and come with negative side-effects. You need a better argument than, "this is bad for you and dangerous and if you do this or take this, you're going to be locked, because these products are bad for you." Or you need a better argument than these products violate some people's religious and moral values in order to outlaw something. You need a fact-based argument that lays out that the negative consequences of using let's say risky products or so great that if they're allowed to be consumed in society that not only will the people who consume them be negatively affected. but the people around then and the greater society will be harmed to the point that society couldn't afford those negative affects. An argument that has never been made to outlaw alcohol or any other product that comes with real risk in America.

So why bas prohibition failed?

I'll give you a hypothetical: think about a father who doesn't want his daughter ( let's say ) seeing her boyfriend anymore simply because the father doesn't like him and doesn't want him around his daughter and he tells his daughter that and perhaps even tells her boyfriend that he doesn't' want him seeing his daughter anymore and if does, there will be real consequences for that: you think the daughter is going to stop seeing her boyfriend simply because her father no longer wants her to see him, especially if her father can't explain why he doesn't' like him, or why he's bad for her? Well, if you're familiar with teenage girls in America and perhaps outside of this country, you know that they won't stop seeing people simply because their parent or parents tell them not to.

The so-called War on Drugs whether it was alcohol prohibition in the 1920s or the war on harder narcotics today like marijuana ( and there's still a question of whether marijuana is actually a harder narcotic than marijuana ) has failed for the same reasons. Just because you tell someone they can't do something especially if the person is an addict or they know what they're doing is not so dangerous than they can die from, especially if they don't abuse alcohol or marijuana, doesn't mean they'll stop doing it or taking whatever they're into. It just means that what they're currently doing is illegal and that they may end up in jail or prison if they're caught in possession or consuming what they're into.

What you get with the so-called War on Drugs is an overcrowded, unaffordable, and unsustainable criminal justice and prison incarceration system where maybe 1-10 American prison inmates don't represent any actual threat to society. If they represent any threat whatsoever to anyone, it's to themselves, but because they're addicts. If your'e a true fiscal Conservative, you hate the so-called War on Drugs and criminal justice system in America, because it's so expensive, because we lock up people for what they do to themselves. You're cool with locking up predators who hurt innocent people especially if the punishment is just, but locking up people for what they do to themselves is a waste of tax dollars and you hate that as a fiscal Conservative.

So the War on Alcohol and the broader so-called War on Drugs has failed for several reasons: One, almost 50 years later after President Richard Nixon launched this so-called war we're still fighting it. That should be a pretty good clue there. But now thanks to this so-called war we have an overcrowded, unaffordable, unsustainable criminal justice system in a time when we're running trillion-dollar deficits and have a national debt of over 20 trillion-dollars.

Just because you outlaw something doesn't mean it goes away, it just means that it's now illegal and will go underground. And the people who get caught will end up in prison simply because they were caught in possession or caught using a product that Big Government says is dangerous and should be illegal.

Just like the father who tells his daughter to stop seeing her boyfriend for no apparent reason: they'll continue to see each other, but behind her parents backs and no longer be upfront and honest about their relationship.  

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

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