Salena Zito: Our Counterculture Revolution is Here & it is a Revival

"Something big is happening with America’s young people. It has been building for the past two years. It centers on faith, purpose, and a renewal toward more traditional American values. This new American youth counterculture movement looks very different from the one that burst onto the scene in the 1960s.

Sixty years ago, the youth movement on college campuses set out to upend our culture’s status quo — the rebellion created a seismic cultural and political shift away from post World War II traditionalism.

And for the next 60 years, we inched towards leftist ideologies that began with noble purposes such as the Civil Rights Act and equal pay for women. Then we went from center-left to leftist to far left. The ideology infiltrated all of the dominant cultural centers: government, institutions, technology, academia, corporations, Hollywood, and legacy media.

And church attendance across all faiths, particularly among our young people, plummeted.

Pretty soon, what was once the counterculture was now the status quo — it had the power and influence on society. It wasn’t until COVID and the unbearable totalitarianism of its impact on our society that people began to see that our dominant cultural power base needed a dose of its own medicine.

Every counterculture movement is a rebellion against the dominant culture. Now, our young people are leading the way by rejecting the conformity demanded by our culture and its elite gatekeepers who crush dissent from anyone who questions their authority.

What has been missing for many young people is a relationship with God. I first noticed this soft awakening in 2023 when walking across the Roberto Clemente Bridge here in Pittsburgh and saw hundreds of young people literally jumping in the water while religious music was playing on the shore line.

It was a spontaneous baptism that included hundreds of young people who decided this was the day they would accept Jesus into their lives. The moment was powerful and moving — just as powerful and moving as two Sundays ago when days after Charlie Kirk was assassinated, young people showed up at The Sanctuary Church in the Hill District of Pittsburgh. They came by the droves to express their faith.

“And what we are witnessing across this country is an awakening with our young people, a true revival.”

These moments are not anecdotal. Two recent reports have shown a dramatic shift among young people and their relationship with their faith. First, the Pew Research Center released a report showing that the decades-long decline in Americans identifying as Christian leveled off, followed by a survey done by the Barna Group that showed that downward trend is now in full reverse.

And who is driving the return to church? These reports show the rise in faith is being driven by those in their 20s and 30s.

“Since the pandemic Millennials and Gen Z have shown significant increases in commitment to Jesus,” the Barna Group study reads, “while Boomers and Gen X, especially women, have remained flat in their commitment levels to Jesus.”

Last Thursday, a remarkable moment happened on the campus of the University of Pittsburgh when 600 college students showed up for a first-ever “Pitt for Jesus” event. There, it was clear we are in the midst of a revival.

The event featured nearly 100 baptisms, live worship music, prayer, testimonies by athletes and a spiritual awakening among young people that was profound to experience.

Sunday’s memorial service for Charlie Kirk was an example of a large revival. These young people have behaved boldly since the horrid murder, but not in the way our current cultural curators find acceptable, as Erika Kirk said on Sunday.

“These past 10 days after Charlie’s assassination, we didn’t see violence. We didn’t see rioting. We didn’t see revolution. Instead, we saw what my husband always prayed he would see in this country. We saw... 

Source:Salena Zito is a syndicated, right-wing, political columnist.

From Salena Zito

So I guess my response to Salena Zito is a counterpoint to what she's arguing. I'll be the contrarian to what she's trying to argue here. 

She's essentially saying that church attendance is up and more American are finding God again because: 

"Since the pandemic Millennials and Gen Z have shown significant increases in commitment to Jesus,” the Barna Group study reads, “while Boomers and Gen X, especially women, have remained flat in their commitment levels to Jesus...

But according to the United Religious Initiative: 

"Jesus Christ's core religious philosophy, deeply rooted in his Jewish heritage, centered on the love of God and neighbor, emphasized a God of love and mercy, and taught a form of virtue ethics focused on compassion and selfless living, as best summarized by his command to love God and love your neighbor as yourself and his use of parables to convey moral lessons. His teachings also included radical ethical principles, such as the importance of seeking the Kingdom of God, giving to the needy, and pursuing peace and nonviolence, all presented within an apocalyptic framework of God's impending intervention in history... 

From the United Religious Initiative

Now, based on what I showed you from URI, does that sound like MAGA today? 

Does their Dear Leader Donald John Trump sound like a man who believes: 

"love of God and neighbor, emphasized a God of love and mercy, and taught a form of virtue ethics focused on compassion and selfless living, as best summarized by his command to love God and love your neighbor as yourself and his use of parables to convey moral lessons..."?

Is what you hear from FOX News, or Newsmax every night (assuming you even watch FOX News or Newsmax) sound like people who believe: 

"love of God and neighbor, emphasized a God of love and mercy, and taught a form of virtue ethics focused on compassion and selfless living, as best summarized by his command to love God and love your neighbor as yourself and his use of parables to convey moral lessons..."?

Do you think any of these MAGA podcasters, their reality TV stars, their religious zealots who bash people to their face, for being gay, or simply using their First Amendment of free speech, to speak out against the President of the United States... do those people sound like people who believe: 

"love of God and neighbor, emphasized a God of love and mercy, and taught a form of virtue ethics focused on compassion and selfless living..."?

Now maybe Salena Zito managed to find the last of the true believers (when it comes to Jesus Christ) on the far-right in America. But these folks aren't religious, as far as how they practice their own lives and what they believe. If they have a "God" at all, that person is Donald John Trump. Or, that's the person that they view as God. 

I don't agree with political satirist John Fugelsang on everything. He's way to the left of me and the rest of this blog, ideologically. But he's a helluva lot more Christian than Donald John Trump and his hardcore followers, could ever dream of being... even in their longest and best marijuana, or meth highs, and during their best drunk fantasies. And I'm going to give you a few of his quotes about people who claim to love the Bible, even though they've never even read the damn book, or understand it: 

John Fugelsang: The only way you can follow both Trump and Jesus is if you've never read either of their books. 

I've come to view Jesus much the way I view Elvis. I love the guy but the fan clubs really freak me out.

People get God and religion confused. I think God is a bit too hip to join any of his unauthorized fan clubs.

You can find the rest of his quotes on AZ Quotes

American fall into religious cults because they're lost and they find someone 1 day, or perhaps the actual cult leader, who sounds so pure and intelligent, that it's like hearing from Jesus Christ himself. But what they don't know, is the cult leader is not actually following the text of Jesus, or the Bible itself. He's at best taking samples of what Jesus said, or what's in the Bible and blowing them up to fit his own agenda. 

I don't enjoy calling people cultists, even for comedic reasons, but that's what Donald John Trump's base is. They seem him as the Son God (that they don't even believe in, or at least don't understand) and have decided to take every word and action that this man makes, regardless of what he says and does, and treat it like it's from the Son of God. Which is why he's always had hardcore base of 35% (give or take) and another 10-15% of the country with him on presidential election days, simply because they can't bring themselves to vote for a Democrat, for any reason whatsoever. 

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

KrisAnne Hall: 'From Socialist To Constitutionalist - My Story'

Source:KrissAnne Hall- Don't ask me to explain this photo 

"From Socialist To Constitutionalist - My Story

What does it take to make a hard core socialist into a true faith Constitutionalist? Listen as this wide awake story is told to not only encourage you, but to show you how to reach others."

From KrisAnne Hall

Source:Namely Liberty- "From Socialist To Constitutionalist - My Story - NAMELY LIBERTY"

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

"Constitutionalism is the idea, often associated with the political theories of John Locke and the founders of the American republic, that government can and should be legally limited in its powers, and that its authority or legitimacy depends on its observing these limitations. This idea brings with it a host of vexing questions of interest not only to legal scholars, but to anyone keen to explore the legal and philosophical foundations of the state.

How can a government be legally limited if law is the creation of government? Does this mean that a government can be ‘self-limiting’? Is this even possible? If not, then is there some way of avoiding this implication? If meaningful limitation is indeed to be possible, perhaps constitutional constraints must somehow be ‘entrenched’, that is, resistant to change or removal by those whose powers are constrained? Perhaps they must not only be entrenched, but enshrined in written rules. If so, how are these rules to be interpreted?

In terms of their original, public meaning or the intentions of their authors, or in terms of the, possibly ever-developing, values and principles they express? How, in the end, one answers these questions depends crucially on how one conceives the nature, identity and authority of constitutions. Must a constitution establish a stable framework for the exercise of public power which is in some way fixed by factors like original public meaning or authorial intentions? Or can it be a living entity which grows and develops in tandem with changing political values and principles? These and other such questions are explored below." 

So to understand KrisAnne Hall's definition of what it means to be a Socialist: I guess she was a Communist and perhaps even a Che-Guevara-Fidel Castro loving Communist, until she woke one day and found Jesus. Perhaps she didn't just have Che t-shirts or a closet full of Che t-shirts, but she personally made Che t-shirts and hats as well. This might be a slight exaggeration, but if you watch her video and just the first 5-10 minutes of it, you could easily get that idea. Unless you're too busy staring at your i-phone or something and completely missed her story.

How about constitutionalism: if you think of the terms constitutional conservative and what's supposed to be the philosophy of constitutional conservatism, you're talking about someone who believes in conserving the Constitution. So in the United States that would be the U.S. Constitution. So Conservatives believe in conserving which is the whole point of being a Conservative and conservatism.

So if you're a Constitutional Conservative, you believe in conserving the Constitution. Not just parts of it that into one partisan or another's current political objectives, but the whole damn document and every amendment in it, whether you agree with every aspect of the Constitution or not. Because you don't want big government coming in and outlawing certain freedoms that we have, just because it decides it doesn't believe individuals should have that freedom, or there's some popular movement to outlaw that freedom or freedoms. Just one example of what it means to be a Constitutional Conservative.

Just to give you a brief, modern history of Constitutional Conservatives and constitutional conservatism: When then Representative Michele Bachmann and former Senator Rick Santorum ran for President back in 2011-12, ( Michele Bachmann's campaign didn't make it even to 2012. Not even sure if her campaign qualified as short-lived. ) they were both throwing around the term Constitutional Conservative.

But here's the irony and even catch about their Representative Bachmann and Senator Santorum's self-descriptions of their politics: they were both running to amend 2-3 amendments of the U.S. Constitution. In Senator Santorum's case, 4 because he was talking about amending the 1st Amendment to outlaw pornography, which would actually cover the 4th Amendment as well and what people do in the privacy of their own homes and free time. And the 10th and 14th Amendments to outlaw same-sex marriage from the Federal level. And he was also flirting to come out in favor outlawing gambling as well at the Federal level. Which would also come with serious constitutional issues and challenges as well.

So to sum up the Bachmann and Santorum presidential campaigns and to put it simply: neither one of them, at least when they were running for President were Constitutional Conservatives. They were no more Constitutional Conservatives, than Bernie Sanders is a Libertarian and Ronald Reagan was a Communist. And to go back to one of my original points about Constitutional Conservative: you either believe in conserving the Constitution or not. You're all in on the U.S. Constitution, or you're not a Constitutional Conservative. Constitutional Conservatives are not political partisans ( whether they're on the Right or Left ) simply there to conserve the aspects of the Constitution that they like, while working to outlaw and amend aspects of the Constitution that doesn't fit their politics.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Dennis Prager: 'Clarity About Nationalism'

Source:Townhall- An American Patriot?

"In order to make arguments for nationalism, we have to define it.

The first definition in Merriam-Webster is “loyalty and devotion to a nation.” But in a second paragraph, it adds, “especially: a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.”

Let’s be clear: If the second paragraph is the only definition of nationalism, nationalism is always a bad thing. Furthermore, I acknowledge that this definition is what some people have in mind when they call themselves nationalists.

At the same time, even anti-nationalists would have to acknowledge that if the first paragraph is the definition of “nationalism,” nationalism can often be a beautiful thing.

So, if we are to be honest, the answer to the question of whether nationalism is good or bad is “How do you define it?”

Read more from Dennis Prager

Source:Crash Course: John Green- 'Samurai, Daimyo, Matthew Perry, and Nationalism: Crash Course World History'- A less serious look of nationalism 

"In which John Green teaches you about Nationalism. Nationalism was everywhere in the 19th century, as people all over the world carved new nation-states out of old empires. Nationalist leaders changed the way people thought of themselves and the places they lived by reinventing education, military service, and the relationship between government and governed. In Japan, the traditional feudal society underwent a long transformation over the course of about 300 years to become a modern nation-state. John follows the course of Japanese history from the emergence of the Tokugawa Shogunate to the Meiji Restoration, and covers Nationalism in many other countries along the way. All this, plus a special guest appearance, plus the return of an old friend on a extra-special episode of Crash Course."

From Wikipedia

"Nationalism is an ideology and movement characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation,[1] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity,[2] and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty).[1][3] It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity—based on shared social characteristics such as culture, language, religion, politics, and belief in a shared singular history[4][5][page needed]—and to promote national unity or solidarity.[1] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional culture, and cultural revivals have been associated with nationalist movements.[6] It also encourages pride in national achievements, and is closely linked to patriotism.[7][page needed] Nationalism is often combined with other ideologies, such as conservatism (national conservatism) or socialism (socialist nationalism) for example.[2]

Nationalism as an ideology is modern. Throughout history, people have had an attachment to their kin group and traditions, to territorial authorities and to their homeland, but nationalism did not become a widely-recognized concept until the 18th century.[8] There are three paradigms for understanding the origins and basis of nationalism. Primordialism (perennialism) proposes that there have always been nations and that nationalism is a natural phenomenon. Ethnosymbolism explains nationalism as a dynamic, evolutionary phenomenon and stresses the importance of symbols, myths and traditions in the development of nations and nationalism. Modernism proposes that nationalism is a recent social phenomenon that needs the socio-economic structures of modern society to exist.[9]

There are various definitions of a "nation", however, which leads to different strands of nationalism. Ethnic nationalism defines the nation in terms of shared ethnicity, heritage and culture, while civic nationalism defines the nation in terms of shared citizenship, values and institutions, and is linked to constitutional patriotism. The adoption of national identity in terms of historical development has often been a response by influential groups unsatisfied with traditional identities due to mismatch between their defined social order and the experience of that social order by its members, resulting in an anomie that nationalists seek to resolve.[10] This anomie results in a society reinterpreting identity, retaining elements deemed acceptable and removing elements deemed unacceptable, to create a unified community.[10] This development may be the result of internal structural issues or the result of resentment by an existing group or groups towards other communities, especially foreign powers that are (or are deemed to be) controlling them.[10] National symbols and flags, national anthems, national languages, national myths and other symbols of national identity are highly important in nationalism."

Even right-wing commentator Dennis Prager, ( who is currently a board member of the President Donald J. Trump For Life Fan club. Ha, ha. ) acknowledges in his own column about nationalism that there's bad nationalism and good nationalism. And in his pro-nationalism definition, that sounds more like patriotism.

Patriotism according to Wikipedia

"Patriotism or national pride is the feeling of love, devotion and sense of attachment to a homeland and alliance with other citizens who share the same sentiment. This attachment can be a combination of many different feelings relating to one's own homeland, including ethnic, cultural, political or historical aspects. It encompasses a set of concepts closely related to nationalism."

I'm a Liberal, a Democrat, and a Patriot and no, none of those things contradict each other. I'm an American Patriot, because I love America, period. America, is a country that isn't dominated by one ethnic or religious group and perhaps within 30 years we'll no longer have a racial majority either. I love Americans, regardless of their ethnicity, race, religion or gender. Patriots, love their country because of what their country represents: not the people that they associate with, the town, state, region, ethnic, racial, or religious group that they come from.

If there's a mainstream and positive faction within nationalism regardless of the country, it's that a mainstream Nationalist is a Patriot who loves their country, not just the people that associate with and community that they come from. And believes in putting their country's interests above every other country's interests at all times. And believes that their country has no interest and right to be involved in another country's affairs, even if that country is doing horrible things to their own people or another country.

The problem even with my own definition of what it means to be let's say a good Nationalist, is those aren't the Nationalists that Americans tend to hear about and hear from, except for maybe as it relates to foreign policy and national security, where you do see Libertarians who have nationalist leanings at least as it relates to foreign policy and national security.

The Nationalists that Americans tend to hear from are the people who believe that they're the real Americans, the real Patriots and that the people who disagree with them and don't share religious and cultural values, or even look like them are the Un-Americans: invaders and traitors to this great country that the so-called real Americans and the real Patriots supposedly love. And if you don't believe me, just look at the modern Republican Party and their leader that's dominated by an Anglo-Saxon, Christian-Nationalist, rural and Southern faction.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Scott Bradley: 'To Run For Office Or Not'

Source:Freedom Rising Sun- That is the question for this piece

"Register for Q&A with Dr. Scott Bradley on Feb 7, 2019 7:00 PM MST at: 

https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/regi...

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

Please register for Q&A with Dr. Scott Bradley on Thursdays at 7:00 PM MST at: 

https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/regi...

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

Facebook Live Thursdays at 7:00 PM MST on:  To Preserve the Nation

Scott’s Website:  FreedomsRisingSun.com" 

Source:Scott Bradley

Source:KWIZE- "

Political language — and with variations this is true of all ...

Kwize

George Orwell about truth (“Politics and the English Language”, 1946) -"

When I think about politicians, I think about one of George Orwell's quote about them: "political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable." Not all politicians are bad people who lack character and morality, but enough of them even if not most of them are and have replaced whatever character and morality that they started with when they were growing up with careerism. Once they into public office, they are there to stay there, or get promoted to the next job. That becomes their number one objective. And if doing a good job once they are in office helps them politically like effectively responding to a natural disaster, then they'll do that, just as long as it helps them politically and they need the support of the people that are getting hurt by that disaster. 

If being in public office just meant that once you are elected to whether it's Congress or some other office, or being promoted in Congress like moving from the House and getting elected to the Senate, if it just meant doing what you ran on and campaigned on, then I might like the job myself. Whether it was Congress, Governor of Maryland, General Assembly. 

I mean think about it: members of Congress ( House and Senate ) make roughly 150,000 dollars a year. If you're in leadership, you make more than that. Roughly three times more than the average American who can't afford to make bullshitting ( excuse the word ) their number one tool at work. If the average American bullshitted as much as the average politician, they wouldn't be able to hold a job, because no responsible employer would be able to trust them. And they might find themselves in jail for committing fraud. 

If you're in Congress, you make 150,000 dollars a year and for what: even if Congress doesn't do their jobs which they're supposed to do not just under the Constitution, but under their own rules like pass an annual Federal budget and appropriations bills, they can give themselves a raise. Congress, not only supervises itself, but is responsible for their own compensation, as far as deciding how much they should be paid and then leaving the taxpayers with the bill to compensate them, even if they're doing nothing other giving speeches, raising campaign funds, and taking political positions that are only in their best political interest. 

So I get back to George Orwell's quote: "political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder sound respectful." Politicians succeed on their ability to bullshit especially when they're either in trouble or facing tough political situations and positions. And trying to find a way to make people believe what they don't believe: like trying to make something that they're guilty of like flip flopping on a key issue make it seem like they're not flip flopping at all. ( That's about Joe Biden and his flip on the Hyde Amendment: in case anyone is wondering ) 

Or when they get caught in hypocrisy, trying to make people believe that they're not being hypocritical at all: like a right-wing politician claiming to be against big government, except when they're in favor of it, because they're against high taxes and government spending, but are in love with big government to the point that they would sleep with it when it comes to people's personal affairs and their own personal lives like when it comes to consensual sex amongst adults. 

Or a left-wing politician claiming to be pro-choice, because they support abortion rights and gay rights, but are anti-choice and pro-big government on just about everything else like as it relates to school choice, gambling, and everything else that the Far-Left in America would like to outlaw and put big government in charge, even telling people what they can eat and drink, and how we can talk to people. 

Politics in America in way too many cases regardless of how many cases and what the percentage is, is not for people who believe in strong character and morality and just want to make the world a better place for themselves and their country. American politics makes liars out of truth-tellers, and crooks out of moral people, because once good, average even if they're good people before they were elected, figure out that once that they're in office they like being able to make good money without actually having to be productive. 

Politicians like traveling around the country or even world at taxpayers expense and being able to attend campaign events at someone else's expense and giving speeches at someone else's expense. And decide if they want to keep their cushy taxpayers jobs ( like former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt ) they need to fall inline and not do anything that could hurt them politically, even if it's the right thing to do, especially if they're looking to serve in higher office. 

If being a politician was simply about doing the job and attending the committee hearings, asking important and relevant questions, holding government accountable, and actually legislating which at this point at least in the U.S. Senate sounds like a foreign word or at least a word that U.S Senator's seem to need to re-familiarize themselves with, because it's been so long that they've actually done any actual legislating, then I might be actually be interested in serving in public office myself. But then I get about to George Orwell's quote about politicians which keeps me out.

John Birch Society: Robin Kinderman: 'Millennials Ushering in The Age of Socialism'

Source:John Birch Society- Robin Kinderman: for a JBS spokesperson, she sounds very rational. LOL

"Thanks to the Great Recession of 2008 and a lack of proper education, Millennial's financial status has them voting in favor of Socialism. Will they wake up and see it’s one of the greatest threats to America today? Find out in this episode of Straight Talk!"

From John Birch Society

Source:Charlotte Observer- "OMG, Bernie Sanders is, awesome!!!" LOL

I guess I have a different take here even though I agree with Robin Kinderman that the Great Recession and leftist politicians ( shall we call them ) coming around and promising them all sorts of so-called free stuff to help them get by, is why a lot of Millennials support of socialism. But even if you grant all of that you would have to forget about another possibility of why Millennials say they support socialism and not consider that there might be social and cultural reasons why some Millennials at least say they support socialism.

Every young generation at least since the TV age has had some love affair with socialism, at least until they enter their 30s and grow up: get a good job, get married, have kids, buy their first home, etc. And then that love affair for socialism goes away once they start paying taxes and having other bills to pay, and then realize that they can now support themselves and decide that they're making a good living now and can pay their own way, don't need government taking care of them, and ask why should they be paying so much in taxes, if they don't need those government services.

Socialism was popular with young Baby Boomers and then the 1980s comes around with the economic boom from that decade, as well Boomers are already grown up by then and now have kids, with their own homes, making a good living, and no longer want socialism simply because they don't believe that they need it. My Generation X, has never had any love affair for socialism for the most part, because we grew up during great economic times for the most part and have decided that we don't want it for the most part. Millennials, are different because a lot of them grew up, or just out of college during the Great Recession and socialism is more appealing to them which is why a politician like Bernie Sanders ( a self-described Democratic Socialist ) has so much appeal for them.

But the economy and whatever current economic times the country might be going through are not the only reasons why some people might fall in love with socialism: as I mentioned earlier, Millennials today say they like socialism and Socialists, because Socialists are cool. So much about being a Millennial is being cool; having all the designer clothes, all the gadgets, following the right celebrities, TV programs, movies, entertainment in general, and following Socialists, because of all the political factions in America, Socialists are always the coolest. Which is why so many so-called Hollywood Leftists, claim to either be Socialists themselves ( even though they're some of the richest people in America and at least love capitalism privately and are actually Liberal Democrats or Conservatives politically, at least as far as how they personally live and not Socialists ) or back Socialists, because they always want to be cool ( or awesome ) themselves.

I don't think you'll ever convince me that Millennials actually love socialism as an ideology and actually believe in everything that comes from the socialist philosophy: all the high taxes, regulations, restrictions on personal wealth and freedom in general, centralization of governmental power and all the government in general. Maybe when they're in their 40s and still claiming to be Socialists and are living on communes and are no longer personally subsidizing Americans capitalism with their real love affairs for new technology, celebrity culture, coffee houses, designer clothing, and just live off what they personally make and share their own wealth, then maybe I'll start taking them seriously as Socialists, who actually support the socialist philosophy and not just looking to be part of some social fad and bandwagon.

 I mean seriously, if you did a national poll and the only people you polled were Millennials and asked them would you give up all your gadgets, coffee houses, stopped favorite celebrities, reality TV, social media, Hollywood, and designer clothing, in order to defeat and end American capitalism: how many would even say they would do that, let alone actually do that? I doubt many would at least actually give up all if any of their favorite American capitalist hobbies and activities just to defeat American capitalism. At the end of the day, Millennials love American capitalism too. Perhaps not as mush as Professor Milton Friedman, but they love American capitalism and not socialism. Just look at their own personal spending habits and lifestyles. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Daily Signal: Fred Lucas: 'What's The Legacy of The Tea Party?'

Source:The Daily Signal- "Then-Representative Mike Pence, R-Ind., addresses a tea party rally March 16, 2010, near the Taft Memorial in Washington, D.C. Pence, now vice president, was an early supporter of the decade-old movement. (Photo: Douglas Graham/Roll Call/Getty Images)

It was Tax Day 2009 when citizens gathered in 850 cities across the nation for tea party rallies protesting the recent $700 billion federal bailouts of banks and automakers, an $800 billion economic stimulus package, and, more broadly, government deficits and debt.

On April 15 this year, Tea Party Patriots, one of the largest tea party groups, will sponsor “Stop Socialism, Choose Freedom” rallies across the country.

On the movement’s 10th anniversary, the phrase "tea party” is seldom used, but organizers there at the beginning say the spirit and principles continue—even as the country continues to face mounting fiscal challenges.

One reason tea partiers aren’t “outside protesters” today is that many of the citizens who never before had been involved in politics rose to prominence in the Republican Party. "

From The Daily Signal

"10 Year Anniversary of Tea Party Patriots"

Source:Tea Party Patriots- Jenny Beth Martin: Chairman of Tea Party Patriots Action.

From Tea Party Patriots

To completely honest here, ( for a change, LOL ) when the Tea Party first started during the spring or summer of 2009 after Barack Obama became President with large majorities in Congress ( House and Senate ) the Obama Administration and Democratic Congress was working on health care reform after passing their stimulus, during last stages of The Great Recession, I as a Classical Liberal ( the real Liberals ) had a mild respect for what was called the Tea Party.

If there were any Republicans at all that were concern about President George W. Bush's and his Republican Congress's borrowing and spending, it was these hard core fiscal Conservatives. Who didn't like borrowing 700 billion dollars to expand Medicare. Who were concern about all the borrowing that they were doing for Afghanistan and Iraq. Who didn't like Federal Government's increase role in public education with No Child Left Behind Law. Who didn't believe the two Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 would ever pay for themselves. The problem that they had and that the rest of the country had was that there weren't simply enough of them in Congress to stop the Republican Party's borrow and spending during the Bush Administration.

I still had a mild respect for the Tea Party movement during the first two years after Republican won back the House in 2010, because the national debt and deficit were huge issues for them. Without the Tea Party Caucus in the House, the budget deficit that was already a trillion-dollars when Barack Obama became President, doesn't get cut in half during President Obama's term. Because the Obama Administration weren't interested in those issues for the most part. They were concern with economic and job growth and getting the economy back to full recovery and not believing that you can do that while doing deficit reduction at the same time. It was the Tea Party that gave us those real budget savings and reforms in 2011 that allowed for the deficit to come during the final five years of the Obama Administration.

But go back to 2013 and ever since, the Tea Party or whatever is left of it is nothing more than the hard-core, rabid and hyper-partisan wing of the Republican Party, that only seems interested in winning elections and electing as many Republicans as possible. And they don't care what they have to do to win those elections including voter suppression and intimidation to prevent young Democrats ( especially ) from voting in competitive elections. And they'll do anything to win including working with foreign nationals to get dirt on their opponents, or throwing out their conservative constitutional principles like having to do with fiscal conservatism, limited government, the rule of law, checks and balances, morality even. ( Death to the family family values Republican Party ) Today the Tea Party, is nothing more than part of Donald Trump's Far-Right Nationalist base, along with The Heritage Foundation and that's where whatever respect that I ever had for them dies and won't come back.

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

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

Sargon of Akkad: Interviewing Steve Bannon- 'Bannonism: The Revolt of The Little Guy'

Source:Sargon of Akkad- The Steve Bannon interview. 

"Steve Bannon, Ex-Trump chief strategist, lays out what's behind Brexit and Trump's populist revolts, Kavanaugh, #MeToo​, #TimesUp​ and more."

From Sargon of Akkad

This is a good way to talk about Nationalists and nationalism, because they're Nationalists and then are Nationalists. Similar to there are Socialists and then are Socialists. Not all Nationalists are Nazis and not all Socialists are Communists. As someone who is not a Socialist or Communist and strongly dislikes both, I would tell you Steve Bannon is a Nationalist, but in the best sense. As someone who loves his country ( in this case America ) and believes his number job is to look out for America and stand up for America regardless of what the rest of the world thinks or does about that.

Source:Sargon of Akkad- Steve Bannon 

Steve Bannon, comes from a small town, blue-collar mindset which is now a solid percentage of the Republican Party now with most big city and big metro Americans either Democrats, Independents, or right of center Republicans especially on economic and foreign policy, but want nothing to do the Nationalists and Christian-Right when it comes to social policy.

Source:Sargon of Akkad- Interviewing Steve Bannon 

And Nationalists in the Bannon sense not the Nazi or right-wing Socialist sense, view people that they see as the elite who went to the top Northeast schools in America and come from money and probably inherited a good deal of money, who've worked in and out of government and when they're not doing that they're working for think tanks or professors at elite colleges, Bannon Nationalists view people of this background as the problem with America.

Bannon Nationalists, view elitists as people who looked down on people who physically work hard for a living, work hard just to pay their bills and mortgages, who don't live in or outside of a big city like Washington, New York, Boston, San Francisco, etc, people who frankly wanted Hillary Clinton for President who Hillary represents.

The 2016 presidential election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, was essentially blue-collar Nationalists represented by Trump. And white-collar elitists represented by Clinton. A big reason why Trump defeated Clinton, is because the Clinton elitist wing of the country was in charge for America for a very long time. And the Trump blue-collar folks felt left behind and believed they were losing their America. Some would argue that part of that had to do with cultural, racial, and ethnic reasons and I would agree with that as well.

To say this is not your father's Republican Party anymore, would be like saying that if you jumped in a lake there is a high percentage that you'll get wet in the water. It would be one of the worst cases of stating the obvious since it was announced that water is wet. The country club Republican Party that were Conservatives and in some cases Progressives even that were primarily interested in economic and foreign policy, is still around, but on life support in the Republican Party. Today's Republican Party is based in the South and small town Midwest and rural America in general. And that's what the Steve Bannon's of the world represent in American politics. 

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

Libertarianism.Org: Free Thoughts- Aaron Ross Powell & Trevor Burrus: Rob Schenck- The Moral Collapse of Evangelical America

Source: Libertarianism.Org- The perfect title for this piece 

Source: Libertarianism.Org: Free Thoughts- Aaron Ross Powell & Trevor Burrus: Rob Schenck- The Moral Collapse of Evangelical America

If there is a moral collapse of Evangelical America, it can be summed up in two words, which are Donald Trump. I'm talking about the political wing of the Christian-Right in America who are dominated by Evangelicals who base their political on their interpretations of the Bible, not the U.S. Constitution. And they see Donald Trump who just a few years ago was an Atheist or at best an Agnostic where religion had little if no impact on his life until he became a Presbyterian a few years ago, the Christian-Right sees Donald Trump and his presidency as their ticket to accomplish a lot of things that they couldn't do with really any other Republican President ever.

The Christian-Right, has made a bargain with devil ( so to speak ) with Donald Trump and have calculated that they're willing to tolerate anything that Donald Trump does all his bad personal behavior, maturity, temper, hate for any dissent against him, lack of experience and knowledge about the issues that he talks so much about and has to deal with as President, his bigotry towards people who don't support him and have decided to sum up all of President Trump's bad behavior into, "he's not a typical politician and does things differently."

And the Christian-Right have just swallowed President Trump's talking points when it comes to negative news about him into saying, "well, we don't know these things are true." Or "well, these Republicans even who don't like Donald Trump are just saying these bad things about him, because they're part of the establishment and are simply trying to defend that." Just as long as President Trump delivers on what he promised the Christian-Right. And appoints judges and justices that will one day will rule that abortion, and same-sex marriage are illegal, and there's no constitutional right to privacy even under the 4th Amendment. Which would be mean big government could then come into Americans personal lives and decide who Americans can sleep with and do with their personal time.

The Christian-Right-Wing of the Republican Party, that back in the 1990s saw pornography, same-sex marriage, and adultery, as threats to national security and morality and therefor must be outlawed in America, are now saying that they don't care about those things at least when it comes to the people they support politically. Adulterous affairs and pornography that their Republicans might have been involved with are none of the government's business, because these Republicans are their people and on their side. And because of this have lost all of their credibility when it comes to speaking about the personal lives and personal behavior of Americans including politicians, because they back and defend politicians who've lived similar lives and have done similar things. Whether it;'s adultery, pornography, or whatever it may be.

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

Source: The Blaze- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

“Democratic Socialism is ‘Diet Communism”

From The Blaze

Just on a personal not first and then I'll get into what Glenn Beck said about socialism, but doesn't Glenn Beck look like one of those Pac-12 college professors who who is always wearing a suede jacket or some other sport jacket carrying a coffee cup from his favorite coffee house and on his I-phone or staring at it, who probably lives just outside of San Francisco or Seattle if not in one of those big cities, with that cheesy goatee he's been wearing for about a month or so? As much as he puts down socialism and Socialists and tend to make fun of those people and I tend to agree with him on these issues, he kind of looks like one of those people with that goatee. I mean Tom Hayden move over, because Glenn Beck could probably take your place.

Source: The Blaze- Glenn Beck, versus Democratic Socialists 

As far as socialism versus communism and I'm talking about democratic socialism versus communism. So let's say Britain before the Jeremy Corbyn Socialists take over that country, versus the Communist Republic of Korea, ( otherwise known as North Korea ) this blog has covered this issue a lot and there not the same things. Social democracies/democratic states like a Britain or Sweden, are very democratic as far as how they operate and there is a good deal of private sector and individualist activity and freedom in the country, unlike like North Korea which is essentially under complete lockdown and run like a prison. And then you have countries like Venezuela, that on paper are supposed to be social democracies, but in actuality are moving to become a total socialist state where even the media will completely be under state control, if the Maduro Regime is successful there.

Source: Religio Political Talk- This sign should say instead , "escape Venezuela while you can, because the Socialists have ruined it."

Democratic socialism is real as far as a real alternative to both liberal capitalism which is what we see in America with a very large private sector and a very liberalize economy and society, all sorts of individual rights and protections, including property rights, privacy rights, civil liberties and communism on the Far-Left where agains the state is in complete control on the country with the responsibility in seeing that everyones needs are met and taken care with people giving up all forms of individual freedom in exchange for the state being responsible for their welfare, with strict punishments for people who get out of line and protest the communist state.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Stockman: ‘Today’s Pathetic GOP: Talks Like Barry Goldwater, Spends Like LBJ’

Source:The New Democrat- Mr. Conservative U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater.

Source:The New Democrat

“Here is the portrait of a dysfunctional party: On Tuesday, the House Republicans unveiled a budget that set a goal of spending cuts totaling $6,454 billion. On Wednesday, Senate Republicans defeated legislation to cut spending by $1 billion. On Thursday, House Republicans voted to renew $20 billion per year in farm subsidies.

The 2018 GOP talks like Barry Goldwater and spends like Lyndon Johnson.”

"Former Budget Director under President Reagan David Stockman plays the word association game on "Bloomberg ‹GO›." 

From David Stockman

Source:Bloomberg News- David Stockman was President Ronald W. Reagan's Budget Director.

From Bloomberg News 

"Reaganomics (/reɪɡəˈnɒmɪks/; a portmanteau of Reagan and economics attributed to Paul Harvey),[1] or Reaganism, were the neoliberal[2][3][4] economic policies promoted by U.S. President Ronald Reagan during the 1980s. These policies are characterized as supply-side economics, trickle-down economics, or "voodoo economics" by opponents,[5] while Reagan and his advocates preferred to call it free-market economics.

The pillars of Reagan's economic policy included increasing defense spending, balancing the federal budget and slowing the growth of government spending, reducing the federal income tax and capital gains tax, reducing government regulation, and tightening the money supply in order to reduce inflation.[6]

The results of Reaganomics are still debated. Supporters point to the end of stagflation, stronger GDP growth, and an entrepreneurial revolution in the decades that followed.[7][8] Critics point to the widening income gap, what they described as an atmosphere of greed, reduced economic mobility, and the national debt tripling in eight years which ultimately reversed the post-World War II trend of a shrinking national debt as percentage of GDP." 

Source:Wikipedia- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) 40th President of the United States

From Wikipedia 

David Stockman’s line about today’s GOP talking like Barry Goldwater, but spending like Lyndon Johnson, reminds me of Max Boot’s line from his column in The Washington Post yesterday, where he said the Republican Party use to be a conservative party with a nationalist fringe and now they’re a nationalist party with a conservative fringe. Max Boot is a conservative himself and use to be a Republican as well and he made that comment about the modern Republican Party. Well, today Barry Goldwater ( assuming he would be a Republican today ) would be part of that conservative fringe in the Republican Party that is dominated by Caucasian Nationalists, primarily Anglo-Saxon Caucasian Nationalists whose families have been in America since the 1700s for the most part.

The Republican Party, has become a fringe party but not a fringe conservative party. We’re not talking about a party that wants to eliminate the safety net and blow up the New Deal and Great Society. The average Republican voter wants their Social Security, Medicare, and every other government social program and tax credit that they’re entitled to including farm subsidies and other corporate welfare. They just don’t want people who don’t look like them whose families haven’t been in America as long as in some cases are first generation Americans or immigrants themselves, who don’t come from Britain, to collect from those programs that Trump voters collect from.

As much as today’s Tea Party Trumpian Nationalist Republican Party, bashes Food Assistance and other Welfare programs, the overwhelming majority of Americans who collect from those Welfare programs come from Trump states. The Bible Belt, Great Plains, states like Kentucky, West Virginia, all states with high levels of poverty and populations who are eligible for government Welfare in order to help them survive. So when these voters bash these Welfare programs, they’re not so much bashing the programs them self, but people who don’t look like them who also collect from those programs. People from inner cities and places with high levels of poverty in urban America.

In other words, the modern Republican Party, is not a conservative party. They’re Donald Trump’s reality TV nationalist tribalist fascist party, that looks down at anyone who doesn’t look at America the way they do and share their religious and cultural values as Un-American not deserving of the same constitutional rights and privileges as people who voted for Donald Trump and still support him, who’ll defend President Trump at any cost short of going to prison .( Like in Michael Cohen’s case )

Instead of believing in fiscal responsibility and that deficits not only matter but that government is too big, the Republican Party now lives with deficits and are comfortable with size and spending of the U.S. Government, because they don’t want to cut programs that benefit Trump voters. Instead of being tough on dictators and authoritarians, President Trump and his supporters embrace them and embrace the Vladimir Putin’s of the world, because they like authoritarians and authoritarianism and are not fans of democracy. The conservative wing of the Republican Party, is not dead, but they’re on political life support and have now become the fringe wing of a national fascist Republican Party.

David Stockman as he told Bloomberg News, which is linked on this post, said Reaganomics in 1981 was, cutting taxes across the board deeply, while at the same decreasing government spending overall, while increasing the defense budget to win the Cold War against Russia, and deregulating American industry across the board. 

But the reason why Stockman told Bloomberg News that Reaganomics would've worked, if tried, because all the Reagan Administration did in the 1980s was cut taxes deeply across the board and increase defense spending. But the U.S. Government, as well as deficits and the national debt, ballooned under President Reagan in the 1980s. They inherited a 40 billion dollar deficit from President Jimmy Carter in 1981 and gave incoming President George H.W. Bush a 200 billion dollar deficit, when the Reagan's left office in 1989. 

It wasn't just defense spending that ballooned during the Reagan Administration. The Department of Justice to deal with the Reagan expansion of the War On Drugs in the 1980s, rising crime rates, as well as immigration. 

The overall Federal budget ballooned during the Reagan years and so did the deficit and debt. So much for fiscal conservatism, even if you want to Ronald Reagan an economic Conservative, which he was. 

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

C-SPAN: Molly Worthen- Lectures in History: 20 Century Fundamentalism

Source: C-SPAN-

Source:C-SPAN 

According to Wikipedia:

A fundamentalist, "is a person who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture in a religion."

That could cover any religion anywhere in the world but generally its's Protestants in America and Muslims in the Middle East and South Asia, parts of Africa who carry that label. Because they're not only religious fundamentalists, but people who are very political and use their religious fundamentalism as their political philosophy. You have countries in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia which officially is a monarchy, but they're also a theocracy and Islamic theocracy. As well as Iran that is official called the Islamic Republic of Iran. Before America invaded Afghanistan in 2001 because the Afghan Government was harboring terrorists who are partially responsible for the 9/11 attacks, Afghanistan under the Taliban Regime was an Islamic state.

You move to America and we see Christian fundamentalists who are Protestants and tend to be Southern or rural as well as Anglo-Saxon with their ancestors coming over here from England in the 16  1700's. America is obviously a federal republic as a well as a liberal democracy with a strong separation of church and state, but if fundamentalist Evangelicals had their way in America they would create their religious theocracy, at least the fringe wing of the Christian-Right in America and establish a fundamentalist Protestant-Christian Anglo theocracy in America. Where women's place in America would be a lot different and a lot more restrictive. Homosexuality and pornography, would obviously be illegal. Certain types of speech when it comes to entertainment but also how people communicate in America would be illegal. Cursing to use as an example. And the argument for these restrictions would be that God wouldn't approve.

There fundamentalist Islamic terrorist groups like Al-Quada and ISIS in the Middle East and Africa, that are looking to take over territory and countries to establish their own religious theocracy. But there also fundamentalist Protestant terrorist groups like the Ku Klux Klan in America, that commit their racist terrorism in the name of God. As well as non-violent fundamentalist Protestant organizations on the Christian-Right in America that would like to see their religious and cultural values become law in America. Where everybody would be forced to live under those values. The Family Research Council would be an example of that. There was a famous Alabama Senate candidate last year whose governing political philosophy was what he called God's Law. His fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible is Roy Moore's governing political philosophy.

Religious fundamentalism doesn't have any one particular owner. Not one religion or religious faction owns religious fundamentalism. Whether it's the Islamic-Right in the Middle East or the Christian-Right in America, or other religious factions in the world. They're just people who believe so strongly in their religious and cultural values and take the literal text of their religious books so literally and believe in those values so strongly and believe they're so great and right, that everyone else should not only live under those same values, but in some cases when it comes to theocrats believe that people in their communities  and country's should be forced to live under the same religious and cultural values.

Phyllis Schlafly Eagles: Phyllis and Fred Schlafly- On Good Morning America in 1978

Source:Phyllis Schlafly Eagles- ABC News Anchor David Hartman.

"Phyllis and Fred Schlafly on Good Morning America 1978. Phyllis and Fred Schlafly sit down on Good Morning America to talk about family, marriage, and the intersection of their public and private life!"

From Phyllis Schlafly Eagles

I don't want to make this piece about Roy Moore, but if I had to guess Roy Moore is a big fan and admirer of Fred and Phyllis Schlafly and their family. Man works and makes money, woman stays home and takes care of the kids at least during the day, but man is always in charge and woman is subservient to man. But similar to Ann Coulter Phyllis Schlafly didn't believe everything that she preached at least in the sense that it should cover her as well. She wrote I believe nine books. Had her own political newsletter, ran for public office several times. She was a working woman before she met and then married Fred Schlafly and then became a working woman again in the 1960s during the Counter Culture movement.

You could argue and I believe Phyllis Schlafly is the mother and founder of the Christian-Right wing of the Tea Party movement. People who are economically libertarian, who have blue-collar middle class populist backgrounds, but are so fundamentalist and hardcore with their religious beliefs that their religious beliefs are their politics. Again, the similarity with Roy Moore, Ann Coulter, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin. People who are so hardcore with their religious ideology which is what Christian Conservatism is, that they believe that everyone else should live under their religious and cultural values. Even through government force. That women shouldn't even be allowed to vote, let alone work and leave those activities to the men.

Phyllis Schlafly might have been a housewife in an official sense, but she was a right wing political activist who founded the Eagle Forum in the 1960s and spent the last fifty years or more of her life working and not staying home to raise her family. And yet she was the founder a political movement in the late 1960s and 1970s, that protested against the Counter Culture and women's movement of the 1960s and argued that women shouldn't work at all and stay home to raise their kids and be subservient to their husbands. 

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