The Daily Beast: Brian Riedl: 'We're $16 Trillion in The Hole- Democrats Want To Burry Us $42 Trillion Deeper'

Source:The Daily Beast- it's our money, not Uncle Sam's.

“The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected that the annual budget deficit will soar from $779 billion to $1.37 trillion over the next decade. And even that assumes that Congress will allow the expiration of both the 2017 tax cuts and the 2018 bipartisan deal increasing discretionary spending.

If those and other expiring policies are renewed—which history suggests will happen—the budget deficit would reach a staggering $2.19 trillion a decade from now (this figure also removes the fake savings from shifting payments across years).” 

From The Daily Beast 

“Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren’s new tax plans would make sure the super rich pay their fair share. 

Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are both introducing tax reform bills that would use wealth tax to make the rich pay their fair share. The Elizabeth Warren wealth tax could raise trillions of dollars in tax revenue. Both Warren and Sanders have thrown their hat into the 2002 presidential election. Elizabeth Warren 2020 is gaining steam daily. Republicans meanwhile are hoping to create more tax cuts for the rich.

Warren unveiled the Ultra-Millionaire Tax. It could generate almost $3 trillion for Americans over the next decade. It would only affect households with assets over $50 million. It would tax 2% on every dollar of net worth above $50 million and tax 3% on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion.

Bernie dropped the ‘For the 99.8% Act.’ It goes after the 0.2% of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million by taxing their estates at 77%. This comes after 3 GOP Senators introduced plans to abolish the estate tax, which they deem the ‘death tax.’

Bernie’s tax plan could raise $2.2 trillion from just 588 billionaires over time. And raise $315 billion in the next decade. Bernie’s tax plan isn’t new — a GOP President once championed the idea. One thing’s for sure: Wall Street is terrified by both Bernie AND Warren’s plans.”  

Source:Now This News- U.S. Senator's Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren: Chairman and Chairwoman of the Congressional Free Stuff Caucus, for the 116th Congress. LOL

From Now This News

Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists (let's call them ) argue the national debt and budget deficits aren't important, because their new investments will payoff anyway. And even if our fiscal situation is a problem like a trillion-dollar deficit and 20 trillion-dollar debt, they could just tax rich (as if that's never been tried before) or gut the defense budget. Of course having no idea where to gut the defense budget anyway, since Democratic Socialists tend not to believe in national defense and have this hippie or Nordic way of looking at national defense anyway.

And as a result we now have a Democratic presidential field where every leftist candidate at least is trying to become the next Bernie Sanders Socialist and win the nomination by trying to out promise (or out pander) or I at least would argue out socialist everyone else including Bernie Sanders, by trying to play Santa Clause to every young Democrat they can find in every college town that they can find and promise them all this new so-called free stuff in order to win the nomination and the hell with the deficit and national debt.

Which is what can happen when you have no many young idealistic voters who believe that government can do all these things for the people and aren't mature and responsible enough to ask basic questions (that might sound insulting to Socialists) like: "How much will this cost me?" Or: "How will you pay for all these new programs?" Which is the state of the Democratic presidential race right now, the more government spending, the merrier and we'll worry about the costs later on after we're all out of politics and government. 

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

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

The Daily Beast: Michael Tomasky: 'A 70% Percent Tax Rate Isn't Radical- Alexandria O. Cortez Has It Just Right'

Source:The Daily Beast- U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez (Democrat, New York) self-described Democratic Socialist. 

"Once they got over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s dancing and Instagramming, they really flipped out over her tax talk, which she discussed with Anderson Cooper on “60 Minutes” Sunday night and which CBS leaked out last Friday as a little amuse-bouche to get people to tune in.

Wait, what?! A tax rate of 60 or 70 percent? Is she mad?" 

From The Daily Beast 

"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 70% marginal tax rate isn’t that radical, nor would it take all of a multi-millionaire’s money. But Republicans don’t want you to know that.

» Subscribe to NowThis:Now This News." 

Source:Now This News- Jackson C. Davis?

From Now This News

What Michael Tomasky failed to mention here ( and perhaps intentionally ) is that back in the 1950s and 70s when we had high tax rates of 70 and 91%, no one especially the rich were actually paying that much in taxes, because of all the loopholes, as well as the wealthy investing money oversees to avoid taxation. 

Hell, if I was making 10 million dollars or more a year or anywhere near that, I would be doing the same thing. Along with making large contributions to charity, to avoid the taxes, but also to help people who need it that I can afford to help. The reason why these people weren't paying such high tax rates, is because of all the loopholes that were in the tax code in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s..

In 1986 thanks to the tax reform act of that year that was passed out of a divided Congress with a Democratic House and Republican Senate that worked with President Ronald Reagan and his Administration to pass, taxes were lower across the board and loopholes were closed. So people were paying lower tax rates, but weren't getting as much money back in credits and loopholes. 

That's not what freshman Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is talking about here and what Michael Tomasky is talking about here either. They would go in the opposite direction and raise the two top tax rates to 60 and 70% with no new loopholes.

So in theory the IRS would be getting a lot more money in new tax revenue from the wealthy, but that's assuming the very rich have brain freezes and forget that they can just invest a lot of more money oversees or just go north of the border to Canada and spend and invest their money there. The first 9 million or so of their earnings every year gets to Uncle Sam out of their wallets and bank accounts. Which would leave Uncle Sam with a big hole, because of course none of this so-called new revenue that he would be charging his wealthy nephews and nieces would be used to pay down his huge debts and deficits, but instead invested in new Federal programs, or new investments in current programs. Leaving Uncle Sam and his nephews and nieces a bigger national debt and deficit to pay off. Which would be paid off in new interest payments on the debt, or in higher inflation.

The problem with Socialists and socialism in general ( even if Socialists want to call themselves democratic or not ) is that they always have the same old solution to every problem that they see and what they call income inequality is a perfect example of that. Their solution to every problem that they see is always what they call new revenue. ( Washington speak for tax increases ) 

Socialists see that the wealthy which are probably 10% of the population at this point has all this money and then you have roughly 1-5 Americans who live in poverty and if you look at parts of rural America 2nd or 3rd world poverty, as well as in some inner cities. And then you 1-2 Americans or so that are technically middle class and aren't eligible for public assistance, but only make enough money to cover their current bills, if they're healthy and aren't able to save or invest any of their income and are a paycheck away from being on public assistance themselves. So their prescription to this economic disease to to tax the wealthy more and give that money to Uncle Sam to take care of this nephews and nieces that are struggling.

The problem with American capitalism has always been that we've always been a country where maybe 1-10 Americans are doing very well economically, who make a lot of money to the point that they can afford to invest and save a lot and then you have about 1-5 Americans who live in deep poverty, who are undereducated and even if they're working are dependent on public assistance and private charity just to survive in life. 

And we have this large middle class which generally is a good thing in any country to have a large middle class, but where maybe 1-2 of those Americans might only be middle class because they make too much money to be eligible for public assistance, but can't afford to invest and save and struggle just to pay their bills.

The problem with American capitalism has never been that we have too many rich people, but that we have too much poverty and too many working class people who struggle just to get by. The problem with American capitalism is that we've never had enough rich people, or economically successful people even if they aren't millionaires as far as their annual income, but have a good deal of money in savings and even have investments. 

And if you're someone who believes that the income gap ( as I call it ) is a big problem in America as I do as a Liberal, you should be thinking about how to empower people on the low-end of the economical scale to make more money. To have better jobs so they're no longer struggling just to pay their bills or live in poverty, but instead are making a good income that comes with benefits and allows them to invest and save. Instead going to play 1 ( and perhaps the only play in the socialist playbook ) of always trying to take from the rich to take care of people who are struggling.

The Daily Beast: Simon & Schuster- Rick Wilson- 'Everything That Donald Trump Touches Dies Today'

Source:The Daily Beast- GOP strategist Rick Wilson's new book about President Donald Trump. 

"Respected conservative strategist and notorious provocateur Rick Wilson today released his from-the-right attack on our 45th President: Everything Trump Touches Dies: A Republican Strategist Gets Real About the Worst President Ever.

Wilson, a Daily Beast contributor, has spent his career as a GOP party insider and he isn’t afraid to call out top players like Mike Pence and Ted Cruz by name. But his new book isn’t a mere clap back. After skewering the hypocrisy of the evangelical right’s embrace of the current administration, he describes a way for the GOP to escape the trap of Trumpism and return to limited government conservatism.

With his characteristic scathing wit, he offers a party that has lost its way a light at the end of the tunnel. No matter what side of the aisle you live on, any politics junkie should pick up a copy of this pivotal take on Trump’s presidency.

Scouted is here to surface products that you might like. Follow us on Flipboard. Please note that if you buy something featured in one of our posts, The Daily Beast may collect a share of sales."

From The Daily Beast 

"GOP STRATEGIST: 'EVERYTHING TRUMP TOUCHES DIES" 

Source:James Wilson- CNN Tonight With Don Lemon, talking to GOP strategist Rick Wilson, about his book about Donald J. Trump.

From James Wilson

I'm going to take you down my memory lane and talk about the Republican Party that I grew up with as a kid in the 1980s and early 90s and see if anyone remembers that GOP ( when they were the GOP ) and if that party makes sense to anyone and then I'll go from there.

The Republican Party that I grew up with, was a party that was about limited government especially at the Federal level.

A party that believed in fiscal responsibility and that deficits and debt were bad except for Ronald Reagan, of course and the other father's of supply side economics who are a big part of the Donald Trump Republican Party today.

A party that opposed both right-wing and left-wing authoritarians and authoritarianism. Whether it was Communist Russia and their supporters in Europe, Communist Cuba just to the south of us. Or right-wing authoritarians like the theocratic regime in Iran and the monarchies in Arabia.

The GOP use to be a party that believed in immigration and even cultural and racial diversity. Ronald Reagan, the man who coined the phrase that America is the city on a shining hill and that we welcome immigrants from everywhere. Not just from Britain and Scandinavia. Because they believed that immigration was a plus to our economy because immigrants from third-world countries would do the work that Americans wouldn't do and would also bring skills to the high-wage jobs that Americans don't have the skills for like in new technology.

The GOP that I grew up with wasn't just a party that believed in a strong but limited national defense, but who also trusted our defense and intelligence communities. Unlike I don't know, let's say the current President who takes the word over President Vladimir Putin ( the dictator or Russia ) over his own intelligence community and national security officials.

The Republican Party today is a party that believes deficits don't matter. How do I know that? The Trump Administration inherited an economy that was growing at 3% with a 4.5% unemployment rate that created 12 million jobs during the previous 8 years and a budget deficit that was cut in half during that same period, so what do they decide to do with that?

The GOP tried to pass a plan to fund a southern border wall that no one who didn't vote for Donald Trump wants and even some Donald Trump voters don't want and after Mexico of course said they wouldn't pay for it announced they would borrow 50 billion dollars from other countries to try to pay for the wall that almost no one wants. 

And then the GOP of today passed a trillion-dollar tax cut again on the backs of American taxpayers who are going to have to pay for that tax cut even if they received any of it from interest payments to the national debt, because the tax cut wasn't paid for. It's George W. Bush borrow and spend economics all over again, but this time coming from the self-proclaimed king of debt Donald Trump.

A party that once called America the city on a shining hill and is open to immigrants from around the world, that America is a country of immigrants, now calls Latinos animals, insects, yes, shit-holes coming from the President of the United States. And complains about America not looking the way it use to and not being the America that they grew up with because it's now less Anglo and even European. 

And the GOP of today of course they blame that even on legal immigration because we're no longer seeing high rates of immigration from Britain and even Europe in general, because those countries are developed countries and don't have people trying to escape those countries because they can't find work, get an education, or fear for their safety, unlike Central America and parts of Mexico.

The GOP that was once a party that was hawkish towards authoritarian regimes even Russia post-Soviet Russia, now call Kim-Jung Un ( the dictator of North Korea ) an honorable man. That takes the word of right-wing Nationalist dictator President Vladimir Putin of Russia, word over the American intelligence community when he said his government didn't interfere in the 2016 American elections and didn't want Donald Trump to become President of the United States. With President Trump saying that President Putin is fine and is someone we can work with. And now views our European allies like Britain, Germany, and even Canada, as the opposition, while they view Russia and China as allies.

The title of this piece is: "Everything that Donald Trump Touches Dies" which of course is Rick Wilson's title from his book and I'm going to get to that, but everything that I've written here Rick Wilson agrees with just from his own commentating on CNN. And I'm going to get to that by saying just looked at the people who use to work for President Donald Trump and where they are now.

Sean Spicer, just two years ago was a well-respected GOP Washington insider who ran the communications department for the Republican National Committee. Now he's trying to sell the book he wrote about being President Trump's Press Secretary, because he can't get a job with a major news devision or network or another job working for another Republican politician  or official, because he shot to death his own credibility working for President Trump.

Tom Price, who before he became President Trump's Secretary of Health and Human Services was a well-respected U.S. Representative from Georgia, as well as doctor who chaired the House Budget Committee before he became Secretary of HHS. Was asked to resign as HHS Secretary because of his bad traveling habits and taking overly expensive travel flights at taxpayers expense.

There's a whole book that will be written about Scott Pruitt who again just two years ago was a well-respected as Attorney General for Oklahoma and is now accurately viewed as a crook who used his job and power to make his own personal life more comfortable, as well for his family.

And then you could talk about people who had credibility and characters flaws before Donald Trump becomes President and yet found themselves working for President Trump, because they fit in perfectly with Trump's lack of character and credibility. 

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, Manigault-Newman and unfortunately many others. These people will probably never work in government again at least at the Federal level, unless they're elected by very forgiving or factually ignorant people, or people who simply don't care about character and credibility, if they like that person's politics.

Every government job that anyone could take comes with a lot of sacrifice and even risks. You're underpaid at least for what you're expected to do and the hours you put in. Your personal and family life suffers, because you put in so many hours just at the office and you're traveling a lot. 

But when you work for someone like Donald Trump, you put the rest of your life at risk ( not physically ) and you're ability to financially support yourself, because you're constantly put into positions where you either have to deny the obvious or act like you're simply out of the loop and don't know what's going on even in areas where you work in and have jurisdiction over. 

Take Secretary Kirstjen Nielson, who struggles to answer basic questions about immigration. And anyone with any self-respect and dignity, honesty at all, has to know those things even when they're considering working for someone like Donald Trump.

The Daily Beast: Nick Gillespie- Authoritarians vs. Libertarians Is the Real Fight on the Right

Source:The Daily Beast

I disagree with Nick Gillespie for a couple of reasons on this. When I’m willing to take Donald Trump seriously as a presidential candidate and not some bad reality TV performer whose just there to perform a role, draw ratings and attention and promote their future career, then I might take The Donald seriously as not just a presidential candidate, but a Far-Right fascist authoritarian. Every Anne Coulter Neoconservative utopian fantasy come true. But the problem is Senator Marco Rubio so far has the best comment about The Donald’s presidential campaign and that he called him a con man. The Donald you see today is not The Donald from even five years ago, let alone ten years. The Donald Trump we see today politically we’ve never seen before. No one has and he’s losing friends as a result.

As far as Senator Ted Cruz, I don’t buy him as an authoritarian either. Demagogue? Sure. Hyper-partisan? Sure. Someone who believes in shutting down the government over governing even though he’s an elected government official? Sure. But those things alone don’t make you an authoritarian. If you look at Senator Cruz’s positions when it comes to civil liberties like the Patriot Act and the broader War on Terror, marijuana legalization, criminal justice reform, right to privacy, he does very well there. And is one of the strongest proponents of civil liberties in Congress and he’s only been there for a little more than three years. And even on issues where he would disagree with Liberals such as myself and Libertarians such as Nick Gillespie, he takes a federalist approach. Instead of the neoconservative big government nationalist view.

As far as the future of the Republican Party. Do they want to be a big government neoconservative authoritarian party, or do they want to be a conservative-libertarian party where both Conservatives in the Ted Cruz sense and Libertarians in the Rand Paul sense, can thrive and succeed? Assuming Donald Trump is there next presidential nominee and we’ll know tomorrow night how close he is to that, they probably need to lose another presidential election big and lose most of the big states before we see which direction they go in. Because if The Donald is their next presidential nominee, he’s going to lose and lose big. Even if he moderates for the general, because he’s already on record for taking so many Far-Right neoconservative views. As it relates to women, Latinos, Muslims, etc. And won’t win the presidency simply by winning a shrinking a Caucasian working class. And the Christian-Right.

The Daily Beast: Opinion: Nick Gillespie- Why Hillary Clinton Should Thank God for Donald Trump

Source:The Daily Review

I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton either and I don't come at that as either a Libertarian, or a Progressive, but just as a Democrat who is an American voter before I'm a Democrat, or even a Liberal. I don't like her because she gives political opportunism a bad name. There needs to be some new term to describe how Hillary has changed positions on critical issues over the years. Like con-women, career politician, politician junky, power-hungry, overly ambitious and these would just be the light terms that could apply with her.

Against same-sex marriage before she was for it, against allowing states to legalize marijuana, before she was for it, pro-Iraq War until it became too politically hard for her stand by it and came out against it. And when it comes to civil liberty issues where she does have a consistent record, she comes down on the wrong side at least from a liberal, or libertarian perspective. Pro-Patriot Act and NSA spying, to use as examples. I hate to say this as a Democrat, but in many way she's the Democratic version of Mitt Romney. And could marry Flip Flopper and become Mrs. Flip Flopper, instead of Bill Clinton. At least Flip, wouldn't cheat on Hillary every time she's out-of-town.

Why is Hillary the frontrunner not only for the Democratic nomination for president, but most likely the 45th President of the United States in January, 2017? Because her main opposition, (if you want t call it that) is the Republican Party. Who is literally running a one-man reality show in Donald Trump for president. And when the mainstream Republican presidential candidates like Jeb Bush, goes after The Donald, it hurts them in the GOP polls. But when they don't, they're devastating their own chances in the general election, if they get that far by not going after the reality TV con-man and fascist.

In a normal presidential election, Hillary is probably still the favorite to win the Democratic nomination at least with an edge going into the general election. But she wouldn't be looking at a landslide and would have a Center-Right Republican as her competition and instead of scaring Latinos, Muslims and women, would instead be reaching out to those groups and making inroads with those communities. She would most likely be facing a Jeb Bush, or John Kasich and perhaps a Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz emerges instead. But The Donald, would still be back at home hiring illegal immigrants, instead of bashing them. And perhaps preparing to file bankruptcy on another one of his companies. Because the GOP would never be dumb enough to give The Donald any credibility.

Similar to President Barack Obama in 2011-12, if 2016 was about Hillary's record as a politician and public servant and not about her lack of competition from the other side, she's not walking away with the Democratic nomination right now. Governor Martin O'Malley, my preferred choice, would be giving her a hell of a run for her money. Because he was a successful Center-Left Governor. A true Center-Left Progressive with results as Governor. Bernie Sanders, would be the Dennis Kucinich of 2016, but not as wild and fringe and having at least one foot on Earth. Unlike Kucinich, who lives on Planet Utopia mentally, where there's no need to even have a military. And Hillary, would have to take on Governor O'Malley, like she took on then Senator Barack Obama in 2008. And either earn the Democratic nomination, or lose it. But there's nothing normal about 2015-16.

The Daily Beast: Ann Coulter: 'Donald Trump’s Muslim Plan Is ‘Best Birthday Gift’

Source:The Daily Beast- Alt-Right big mouth Ann Coulter.

Source:The Daily Review 

"Conservative firebrand pundit Ann Coulter is so thrilled with Donald Trump’s proposal to ban Muslim immigrants from the United States that she has called it the “best birthday gift” she’s ever received. Trump announced his idea Monday evening, and Coulter turned 54 on Tuesday. “Add in every other kind of immigrant and it’s perfect!” she added, seemingly calling for a total ban on all immigration." 

From The Daily Beast 

"Author Ann Coulter explains to Gibson why the Leading Presidential Candidate Donald Trump  delivered to her the best birthday gift to date." 

Source:From the self-described Conservative Citizen- Alt-Right big mouth Ann Coulter.

From the self-described Conservative Citizen

I don’t know who is a bigger birthday gift for bloggers and comedians, Donald Trump, or Ann Coulter. I guess The Donald would be at least physically, but that might only be because Ann Coulter has the body that only a stick-figure could want and is tall as a giraffe at the same time. Maybe they could run on a ticket for birthday gift of the year and run as a duo. Perhaps arm-wrestle to see who should run for president and who should run for vice president. I gotta admit even with her scrawny frame, with all of that masculinity that Ann carries inside, that might be enough for her to beat the 220 pound or more Donald Trump in an arm-wrestling contest.

Or better yet, The Donald and Flat Ann, could run for President and Vice President of the United States together for the Fascist Party and bring that back. As they’re working to develop their national time machine to take America back to 1955 and celebrate like its 1955 on New Years Eve and Day. They could appoint Rick Santorum as their foreign policy adviser and Mike Huckabee as their social policy adviser. Donald Rumsfeld, (an even less impressive Donald) could be their national security adviser.

A couple major things that The Donald and Flat Ann have in common is that neither one of them are politicians, because neither one of them are electable outside of the Bible Belt. And in The Donald’s case, he’s not electable anywhere outside of a Hollywood movie, or one of his own so-called reality TV shows, because he doesn’t know what he believes. Which gets to my second point about The Donald and Flat Ann, that since neither one of them are politicians they both can say whatever nonsense comes into their head at anytime.

Because they both know they’re not going to get elected to anything anyway. The Donald. wants to sell himself for his current venture which is: "Who Wants Donald Trump For President?" Which will be available at your nearest TV set, or movie theater by the spring of 2017. And Flat Ann wants to sell her latest book and columns which will be available at your nearest garbage cans sometime in 2016. With pieces of three-weeks old baloney stuck in each page. With even homeless people turning down as food and reading material at the same time.

The only time I’m surprised by anything that either Donald Trump or Ann Coulter says, is when they say something intelligent. And I gotta tell you I have a hell of a memory and I can’t remember the last time either one of them ever said anything that got me thinking: ‘hum, we agree on something. They have a point there and I wish I had thought of that.’ They are both sharp businesspeople even accidentally in the sense that they know how to sell themselves. Sell their business ventures and in Flat Ann’s case her writings. Trash to be accurate that she sells that gets thrown out, or made fun, or a combination of both.

No, Ann Coulter, is not a prostitute, because lifelong prison inmates who have a better chance of seeing snow in San Diego than getting out of prison, have turned her down and have chosen men instead. What I mean by that is they sell themselves as far as what they’re personally selling. With The Donald, it's his personality and reality TV career. With Flat Ann, it's her books and columns. That keeps garbagemen in business forever with all the trash she writes. I personally for the life of me can’t believe why any intelligent person could even take either of them seriously, let alone believe what they say could actually be true. 

The Daily Beast: Michael Kazin- The Radical Left—Always a Bridesmaid

Source: The Daily Beast- Democratic Socialist U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders-

Source: The Daily Beast: Opinion- Michael Kazin- The Radical Left—Always a Bridesmaid

I agree with Michael Kazin that the New-Left, lets say has always been the bridesmaid in the Democratic Party. George McGovern in 1972, would be the exception to that, where the New-Left got exactly the presidential candidate that they wanted. But where the Democratic Party is smarter than the Republican Party, is the Democratic Leadership knows how to use their radicals to get them to vote for their mainstream Center-Left establishment candidates. 2008 and 2012 with Barack Obama, are perfect examples of that.

Where the New-Left, thought they were getting Dennis Kucinich, or Ralph Nader ideologically, they instead get someone more like Jack Kennedy in Barack Obama. Whereas the Republican Party will go out of their way to make it clear to their Christian-Right and Neoconservatives that their candidates are just as stuck in the 1950s as the people the Far-Right rather have representing the party. John McCain, in 2008, Mitt Romney, Mr. Northeastern at best a Moderate-Conservative Republican, depending on which Mitt you’re talking to. Are good examples of this from the GOP.

The term radical, is not necessarily bad. It just means you’re out of the mainstream in the time and place that you happen to live. Which is where the New-Left has been in America since it was created in the 1960s. America, is not Scandinavia ideologically, or anything else and never has been. We like our Constitution, we like our property rights, we like our federalist form of government, with most of the power not being centralized with the national government, unlike in Scandinavia. We like all of our individual freedom. Including the Right to Privacy and Freedom of Speech. Which even includes the right to offend. All things that the New-Left in America has been against at point, or another.

It’s hard to win politically in a country, when you represent something that is completely different from what the country is use to and what they want to keep. Where you’re literally running to remake the economic system and trying to convince hard-working middle class workers that they’re simply under taxed and need big government to take more of your money from you to serve you. Where you literally want to get rid of the Constitution and rewrite it, or simply not bother to replace it. And be able to do everything that you want through majority rule and referendum.

The New-Left, is part of the Democratic Party to a certain extent, because they need the Democrats and to a certain extent the Democrats need them. Not because ideologically even though at times they may have similar goals, are very different ideologically. Where the New-Left, ideologically would be better off in the Green Party, or Democratic Socialist Party and perhaps even the Communist Party. But are smart enough to know that if the bolt the Democrats for a Far-Left third-party they’ll lose their place in one of the major parties in the United States. The New-Left, are the bridesmaids of the Democratic Party. They come close, or at times look that they are, but in actuality simply get used by the Democratic Leadership time and time again.
HNN Editor: Michael Kazin on Barack Obama and The American Left

The Daily Beast: Lawrence Gelb: 'GOP Hates Barack Obama More Than a Nuclear Iran'

The Daily Beast: Opinion: Lawrence Gelb: GOP Hates Barack Obama More Than a Nuclear Iran

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

Even through Senate Leader Mitch McConnell is the strongest and most powerful Republican in Congress and that includes the Speaker of the House John Boehner, who outranks him in the U.S. Constitution, being a stronger leader than John Boehner is not much of an accomplishment. And even though Leader McConnell is effective at bringing Senate Republicans and Democrats together to resolve some crisis that Republicans generally in the House caused, he doesn’t control the caucus in the sense that he can prevent one of his radicals from making a dumb and irresponsible move. Like telling Iran that Barack Obama shouldn’t be trusted, to use as an example.

Hate is a very strong word and probably the harshest word short of calling someone a mass-murderer or something like that. So it’s not a word I throw around and only use when I mean it to describe how someone feels about someone else. And I’m not a mind-reader obviously. I’m also not God or George Washington, incase that isn’t obvious enough either, but just going off the available evidence at hand I don’t know how else to describe how at least a large faction of Congressional Republicans, including all forty-seven Republican Senators who signed this letter to Iran and how they feel about President Obama. Other than Mitch McConnell himself, because he and the President seem to actually be able to get along.

There use to be this tradition in Washington that you fight the other side or team all day and then shake hands and work out a deal and perhaps even have a drink with at the end of the day. But you treat your opponents as exactly that and not as enemies, which is different. You hate your enemies, but we’ve all had opponents at some point in life that we actually like. And perhaps became friends after we started competing against each other. But with a strong faction at least in the House of Representatives, you would think Barack Obama plays for the enemy. Meaning the terrorists that would like to attack America and authoritarian regimes that would attack Americans if they felt it was in their interest. And based on this Congressional letter from the forty-seven Republican Senators, they seem to believe the same thing.

There great reasons why President Obama is not asking for Congress to weigh in on a final agreement with Iran when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program.

For one, this is not a treaty.

Two, Congress will get to weigh in later not on Iran’s nuclear program, but whether economic sanctions on Iran will be loosened or ended based on the Islamic Republic’s behavior. Which is something that Congress gets to do anyway when it comes to sanctions and something the President needs Congressional approval for.

Three, a political reason, but just important as the others. Congressional Republicans won’t support any agreement with Iran that is anything short of surrender on Iran’s part. Which means Iran completely gives up their nuclear program, or there’s no deal. But the whole point of compromise and negotiation is that neither side gets everything that they want.

These Senate Republicans know that the Obama Administration knows that they meaning these forty-seven Senators won’t support any deal that is anything short of complete surrender on Iran’s part. And Senate Republicans also know they can’t stop the President from negotiating with Iran. So what they’re trying to do, which to me is at least borderline treason is to tell the Iranian Government that they not only don’t trust Barack Obama, but they don’t like him if not hate him. “And neither should you” meaning Iran, “because this guy can’t be trusted.” And it violates all forms of proper protocol and how Democrats and Republicans are supposed to relate with each other.

The Daily Beast: Jonathan Miller: 'For 2016: Take Martin O'Malley Seriously'

Source:The Daily Beast- Governor Martin O'Malley (Democrat, Maryland)

"As Martin O’Malley dips his ankles into the deep end of national politics – most recently with his full-throated plea earlier this month against the deportation of immigrant children — I recalled the first time I saw him on a national stage. I had a pretty good view: I was standing right next to him."

From The Daily Beast

"Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley talks to Candy about his plans for 2016." 

Source:CNN- Governor Martin O'Malley (Democrat, Maryland)

From CNN

It is way too early right now to be talking about 2016 for president especially since we are still three months away from the 2014 mid-term elections that will decide who controls Congress next year, or will Congress be divided again and who will control the majority of state governorships and state legislatures. 

I wouldn't be much of a political junky if I didn't look ahead to elections down the road. And this is one thing that makes politics so interesting is that politicians and potential politicians do the same thing which gives us good stuff to write about.

I'm a native Marylander or Free Stater (for those of you not familiar with Maryland) as well as a Democrat who voted twice for Martin O'Malley for Governor of Maryland. And I'm as proud of those two votes as any votes that I've ever cast. 

Governor O'Malley is a hell of a great Governor who governs one of it not the wealthiest states in the union as far as quality of life, per-capita, income and wealth. So of course he has a lot going for him as well as location being in the Mid-Atlantic. But it still takes a good leader to make those things work, or the state can lose ground to other great states in the region like New Jersey or Virginia.

We have the best public schools in the nation and those rankings came during his administration. Maryland doesn't invest heavily in education, but we invest well and get solid results. During the Great Recession we always had an unemployment rate below the national average and never had serious debt or deficit issues unlike most of the rest of the country. If you want to look at the economy and freedom issues. Again with the great schools not just K-12 but we have a great state college system with Maryland University and others. We have great roads and other infrastructure as well.

The taxes both personal and on business are a little high compared with our competitors in the area. And I would like to see them come down especially since we now have legalized gambling and will probably legalize marijuana in the near future as well. But for the taxes we pay in this state and again a bit high the results that we get in return are pretty good. 

Maryland is gaining business's and tourists everyday. Maryland is a state where you have good skiing in the winter, good beaches in the summer on the Atlantic. Where you can gamble, smoke and posses marijuana without going to jail for it. Where gays can get married and where you are never more than two hours away from doing anything.

I believe the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries will not just be about a mushy-middle Centrist who's afraid to take any solid positions on anything controversial in Hillary Clinton. Or a New-Left Socialist who will take the strongest positions possible perhaps even just to get to the Left of Hillary. 

I also believe there is room for at least one more person who can run and say: "I share the same Democratic and liberal values as you do. And I have a record of producing solid results. I'm not from Washington (even though I live next door to it) and I know how to govern." Who will still be fairly young in 2016 who can appeal to other Gen-Xers and Millennial's and that person could be Martin O'Malley.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Daily Beast: John McWharter: America is Coming to Terms With its Racial Past

When it comes to reparations for African-Americans I have one which I believe obvious yet important question that comes to mind. Yet even though it is obvious the people who are in the pro-reparations group regardless of race do not seem to understand or have thought about. Where would reparations stop?

If you are familiar with American history and I love America as much as any other American, but perhaps for different reasons. But if you are familiar with American history you know that America has a history of abusing races and ethnicities of people starting with American-Indians. Then moving on to Africans with the African slave trade. Denying women the right to vote simply because of their gender. Go up to World War II with the concentration camps for Japanese as well as German and Italian-Americans. Because of some sick belief that these Americans were loyal to their mother countries the same countries that we fought in World War II.

And even if you are able to answer that question I have another one for you. Which gets to punishing people by taking their money and not just British or Caucasian Americans for what happened to Africans during slavery. But the country as a whole including successful and even wealthy African-Americans for what happened to their ancestors. Taking money from Americans from all races and ethnicities to give to let’s say less-fortunate African-Americans who people in the pro-reparations camp believe are still suffering from slavery.

But for anyone who thinks I’m going too negative here I have a solution to empower the less-fortunate in America including poor African-Americans, but that would benefit millions of Americans of all races. A 21st Century Infrastructure and Reinvestment Bank that would provide educational and job training opportunities for Americans of all races who need this. As well as rebuilding and building strong communities especially for Americans who’ve been left behind in our economy.

The way for the less-fortunate or people in general to succeed in America regardless of their race is to have the tools and opportunities to succeed. That starts with a good education as they are growing up. But for adults who didn’t have that, or didn’t take advantage of that growing up empowering them to finish their education so they can succeed in life. Not punishing Americans for the sins of their ancestors. 

The Daily Beast: Ben Jacobs: 'Harry Reid Goes Nuclear On Filibusters'

“In a high-stakes vote this morning, Senate Democrats drastically cut Republicans’ ability to block federal appointments, evoking the so-called nuclear option in a 52-48 vote.

Boom! The Senate just went nuclear. On Thursday morning, Majority Leader Harry Reid secured an unprecedented fix to the chamber’s rules that will drastically change how the Senate considers nominees. The so-called nuclear option eliminates the use of the filibuster on all presidential appointments save those to the Supreme Court and ending what has become a de facto requirement of a 60-vote super majority.

In remarks on the floor, Reid bemoaned what he described as the gridlock in Washington and proclaimed: “The Senate is a living thing, to survive it must change.” The majority leader went on to describe what he characterized as unprecedented Republican obstruction to the Obama administration’s nominees. As examples, Reid cited Republican opposition to three nominees to D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most important federal appellate courts.

After a series of procedural votes, the Senate finally voted to change the rules, which was accomplished by appealing a ruling of the Senate parliamentarian, by a vote of 52-48. All 45 Republicans were opposed, along with three Democrats: Carl Levin (D-MI), Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Mark Pryor (D-AR).

Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Senate Republicans, had dismissed the move as a “fake fight” designed to distract the attention of the American people from the failures of Obamacare. He almost seemed to dare Reid to start the parliamentary process to end the filibuster, saying ‘We’re not interested in having a gun being put to our head any longer,” referencing repeated Democratic threats to do this in the past.

While a number of Democratic senators have long been in favor of filibuster reform, Reid and other senior Democrats have long been wary of the consequences of “going nuclear,” which would be the biggest Senate rules change in decades. However, it seems mounting frustration over what Reid described as the Senate “wasting an unprecedented amount of time on procedural hurdles and partisan obstruction” has overcome these reservations.” 

From The Daily Beast

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

The Daily Beast: Peter Beinart: Brown University's Campus Leftists vs. Free Speech

Source:FreeState MD

I hate the term ‘campus Liberals’ to refer to people are supposed to be Liberals even though they aren’t and sound more like Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez supporting and admiring Neo-Communists, that they do Liberals. I'll get to what I mean by that later, because you simply can’t be a Liberal if you do not believe in free speech period. It would like someone whose a Conservative who doesn’t believe in private enterprise or capitalism. Or a Libertarian whose against the right to privacy and in favor of the War on Drugs. There’s a big reason the first amendment is the first amendment because it is the most important amendment we have and the most important freedom that we as people have.

Take free speech away and you might as well take away democracy and the freedom to assemble and the right to privacy.  Because one doesn’t work without the other with people being able to organize and speak their minds even if it offends people on the fascist Left or fascist Right. People who believe they are God (even if they are Atheists) and have all the answers and are right about everything to the point they believe they shouldn't have any opposition. So if you believe in censorship as a policy and that free speech only applies to people who you agree with, then you are not a Liberal. Just like someone whose against c capitalism and wants the economy to be nationalized is not a Conservative. Or someone whose against the right to privacy and against freedom of choice is not a Libertarian.

The reason the United States Constitution is one of if not the most liberal constitution’s in the world is because of all the freedom it guarantees us over our own lives. Which pisses the hell out of statists on the Left and Right who believe people tend to be stupid. And we need their version of big government to manage our lives for us. It doesn’t guarantee happiness, success or wealth, but provides us with the freedom to gain these things for ourselves in most cases. Our education system fails us in many ways to see that all Americans have the freedom to live in freedom. But under our Constitution we all have the constitutional rights to obtain freedom in America. Including the right to speak and express ourselves and write and organize and assemble. 

And we are guaranteed all a certain level of privacy as well and is starts with the First Amendment. And if you do not believe in it, you are not a Liberal, but perhaps a statist. Or fascist, or some type of collectivist that wants everyone to be the same with no individuality. Perhaps you have your foot so far up your ass that you think you're God with all of the answers about what people need to be happy and healthy in life. And that since you are God, you're not entitled to opposition and the freedom and individuality is not needed in your utopia. 

People with egos the size of planets, who lack a solid basis in reality and see themselves as imperfect, have no business trying to govern a free society. And without for people to be themselves, because you want a world where we all think the same and believe in the same things where dissent is not tolerated. So when I hear the term ‘campus Liberal’ and I hear about these so-called Liberals who believe in censoring people they disagree with because it may offend certain groups they believe need their protection, I believe the real meaning of Liberal has disappeared and has been replaced by something else. 

I’m not sure if I should laugh or get angry as a Liberal when I hear so-called Liberals take such anti-liberal statist, collectivist and now fascist positions on things. Now not just having to do with the economy, but now our personal affairs and how we can express ourselves. Because these people aren’t Liberals, but instead represent the false negative stereotypes of liberalism. And real sorry class of people that live such sorry lives and don't have enough to keep themselves busy and make themselves happy. That minding their own business is simply not good enough, that they feel the need to mind other people's business as well. Especially in an era where Americans are finally seeing what liberalism really is. And not how it has been stereotyped and bashed for forty years.

The Daily Beast: This Week In Punditry - February 3rd, 2013

Source:The Daily Journal

This week in punditry. Let's see where should I start. Well we just had a week with plenty of punditry in it, oh you want more than that. Not sure why, but here it is if you want it, you’ve been warned. Well we had a Secretary of State step down, because she has better things to do than manage our foreign policy. I know right, what’s more important than that. Well she has another book to write and needs to decide if she wants to be President of the United States, or not. Wait, that’s more important ,but of course it's her decision.

And I wish Secretary Hillary Clinton well with her new Gabby Giffords look in how she where’s her glasses. And I congratulate her with her service to the country the last four years by leaving Congress and not running for President and taking on President Obama. And the Democratic Party thanks her for that as well. Let's see what else happened, oh yeah we had a Secretary of Defense confirmation hearing, as if it’s not interesting enough that we would have a Liberal Democrat nominate a Conservative Republican for Secretary of Defense. But the fact that Chuck Hagel forgot to put caffeine in his morning coffee, or forgot to go to bed the night before and forgot to bring his memory, because not all of Chuck Hagel was at that hearing.

Did I also mention that Fox News claimed to be a serious news organization. No seriously I know when have they ever reported any news at all and that Fox News still remains the most trusted name in news. Well for the Republican Party anyway, but don’t take that very seriously. Because they also believe that it’s still 1955 and that President Ronald Reagan never raised any taxes. And that homosexuality was invented ten years ago and that Barack Obama is an African Muslim Socialist from Kenya. So take all of that for what its worth, borrow a dollar if you have to. Or use that money to actually buy something of value. But Fox News is as much of a news organization as Pat Robertson is a supporter of gay rights in America. And to be fair MSNBC is not much of a news organization either, but two cable networks that serve as mouthpieces for the two major political party’s in America.

What else happened this week. Oh yes Rush Limbaugh who apparently still hasn’t died from a heart attack yet, declared that since the mainstream media won’t cover the real news in America, you know anything negative towards Barack Obama and other Democrats and if you can’t find something, make something up, because of course there’s always negative info about Democrats. It just hasn’t been found yet, that if the mainstream media doesn’t do a job on Democrats, that Rush and his allies will.

Rush Limbaugh is about as much of a reporter as Ron Paul is a Socialist, it’s simply not believable. But the good thing for Rush is that as much as he may hate it, as well as the rest of the country may hate having Rush living in America, he lives in a liberal democracy with freedom of speech and beliefs. Thats the way it is as Walter Cronkite the famous CBS News anchor always said to close the Evening News. A big week for a lot of people and more evidence of why we need to fully fund mental health care in America. And have a better public education system with all of the nutty and ignorant people we have on both sides of the aisle.

The Daily Beast: John Avlon, Meghan McCain & Mike Moynahan: Real Housewives of the CIA

SourceThe Daily Journal

Sounds like a real reality TV show in the works, perhaps Megan McCain will produce it. You heard that here first. As far as David Petraeus and his sex scandal, I guess this is the clincher that American politics and government is never boring and why we have a political junky industry. And for Progressives I guess who believe that America should be more like France, well we are when it comes to our public officials and how they live their personal lives. Political junky, is no longer just a hobby for unemployed politicians who can't seem to win another public office and keep losing. And spend all of their free time, which is really all of their time, especially if they have a Congressional pension, watching C-SPAN, CNN, MSNBC and FNC. But a way for writers and pundits to make their living. To tell Americans how much they don't know about American politics and government.

As far as Benghazi, if it wasn't for that story, what would House Republicans do? At least some of them like Speaker John Boehner, are smart enough to know they can't repeal ObamaCare in this Congress with a Democratic Senate and Democratic President, that the law is named after. Most of them probably never have any attention of leaving Congress, at least the House of Representatives. So they don't want to work with Senate Democrats to pass anything constructive that President Obama might actually sign. And risk being primaried and having to go home and work for a living. Like washing cars, or hosting radio talk shows, teaching gym in high school, or whatever they were doing in 2009 before they decided to run for the House. So all they have left in their one page playbook that a five-year could read is a bogus (to be too nice) Benghazi investigation.