Washington Times: The Left's War on Rednecks

Source:The Daily Post

As different as the Far-Left and Far-Right might look in America, they actually do have one thing in common. They are full of bigots and live in small worlds. About the size of a bathroom at as gas station in the middle of nowhere. Love to see them meet at this gas station for a party. They would soon figure out how much they have in common and might even start loving each other. 

The men-hating women on the Far-Left, falling in love with the sexist pigs on the Far-Right. Socialist gay men on the Far-Left, falling in love with homophobic women on the Far-Right. Anne Coulter would be a great examples. Just one consequence of living on a fringe. Where people who don’t seem like them, are ignorant and bad people. Who aren’t really American and shouldn’t be taken seriously. 

Some so-called Progressives have this idea, that unless you're for a big Northeastern city or California, and hang out at coffee shops and think men should bow down to women and let them run everything, you're ignorant and backwards and probably a bigot who hates non-Christians and non-Caucasians. And if you're from small town America, anyone from San Francisco or Los Angeles, Seattle, or big cities in the Northeast, you are Un-American and probably hate Caucasians. Perhaps especially if you think gay people should be treated like, well people. And if you're not a Protestant, you're a Jesus Christ hating Atheist. 

So-called Progressives believe people who are not like them hate ethnic and racial minorities and probably women and homosexuals as well. If you're from the South or rural America or small town America, in many cases you look down at people who are from big cities, especially in the North or California. But probably even in Atlanta, Georgia as well. And you see these people as Un-American Socialists who’s goal in life is to redistribute wealth from rich Caucasians.

And you believe these Socialists want to eliminate Christianity in America to transform it into an Socialist-Atheist state. Or the crazy Far-Right believes Barack Obama wants to transform America into a Socialist-Muslim state. And eliminate private enterprise and give all of the money to minorities .And they love racial humor, except when its directed towards Caucasians.

Those are the fringes in America who don’t let facts get in the way of their political ideology. Who needs facts when people are dumb enough to believe you regardless? And you don’t trust news sources that actually report what is going on, especially when it contradicts you. And they only trust reports from that backs up their political arguments. The AlterNet and both of their readers on the Far-Left and The American Thinker  and their few readers on the Far-Right. I read both of these publications and its hard to find publications that are more slanted or with more bias reporting then them. 

This is what America looks like, right now where the kids are calling the shots. Instead of sitting at the kiddy tables eating their kiddy meals. Meaning the fringes and have a lot of power over their political parties. And the adults in the rooms, the Liberals for the Democrats and the Conservatives for the Republicans, sit at the kiddy tables instead and let their kids run wild and don’t stand up to Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh. When they say crazy things, they end up making their parties look bad. "Wow this is how Democrats and Republicans now think".

I’m a Liberal Democrat who just doesn’t say Dr. Martin Luther King is a hero of mind, but I take his dream seriously, where we could live in a World where we are not judged by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character. And that includes everyone, not just minorities, but caucasians as well. Unlike today's so-called Progressives and when racial jokes are made about Caucasians, I take them to be as bad as when they are made about African, Latin, Asian or Middle Easter Americans. 

There are people both on the Far-Left and Far-Right who like to speak highly of Martin King, but in a lot of cases just to make their ideological argument. And what they really mean is that, "MLK's dream was really just about protecting us, not everybody. Racist jokes as racist pure and simple whoever they are targeted at. Whether they come from the Far Right, Far Left or anyone else. 

The Atlantic: Dino Grandoni: Jon Stewart Explains Comedy to FOX News

Source:Real Life Journal

The only reason for me at least to watch FNC or Fox News Channel and for that matter to be “fair and balanced”, MSNBC prime time on weeknights, is to find out what’s not going on in the World. To get some comic relief and perhaps some ideas for my political satire. Because FNC is basically the RNC, laying out the positions and the spin of the Republican base. And MSNBC prime time Monday-Friday, is basically the mouthpiece for so-called Progressive not Liberal Democrats. 

The Democrats and so-called progressive third-parties, that don’t like President Obama and the Democratic Leadership. Because they aren’t “progressive enough” and aren’t socialist like themselves. Which is what they thought they were getting during the 2008 general elections. If you're going to listen to FNC seriously, not to make fun of it, but to actually find out what’s going on in the world, do yourself a big favor, check at least two other credible news sources. Like a good reporter and you better know what that is before you take FNC seriously. 

Because whether you're listening to Megyn Kelly, Sean Hannity, David Asman and others, Bill O’Reilly to a certain extent, but he isn’t as bad as the others, He does take on both sides, you're basically hearing what they want to tell you. What makes their political views look best and you're hearing a lot of political gossip. That's designed to hurt Democrats and that's what you get from Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz on MSNBC at the expense of Republicans. I swear I get more facts from The Onion something I read everyday than from FNC or Maddow and Schultz. 

Because The Onion is seriously about news satire and doesn't hide from that and they take stories that are true and make them as funny as possible by adding humor to them. When FNC says “Fair and Balanced”, you should take that as a joke that you would hear from The Onion. Because they are only “Fair and Balanced” to their own side.

James Miller Center: FDR Fireside Chat 6: Government & Capitalism

Source:Free State MD

President Franklin Roosevelt, did not become President of the United States, to destroy American capitalism. As some Conservatives and Libertarians have suggested. But he became President to save it, by changing it. Before 1933, when FDR became President, we were essentially a Libertarian Society. Where we were all on our own and if we needed help, we were basically at the mercy of our families, friends and private charity. Had we had a functioning safety net pre-1933, the Great Depression, which essentially lasted for ten years, wouldn’t of been as bad. Because all of those unemployed workers would’ve had some public assistance. They could count on, I’m not saying this as a fan of the New Deal, because I’m not.

A safety net, should be designed to empower people to get themselves off of public assistance. Not just pay people while they are on public assistance. But if we had a safety net back then and we had an FDIC with the Stock Market Crash and we were regulating Wall Street and Corporate America properly, not trying to run it, we could’ve saved ourselves a lot of pain from the Great Depression. So FDR basically ended up trying to create a safety net while people needed it the most. And creating these programs on the fly. FDR, wasn’t trying to turn America into Russia, with a state economy. But more like Europe, with healthy private and public sectors.

FDR didn’t set out to destroy American capitalism, but to save it. By putting in regulations so irresponsible people in business, wouldn’t be able to destroy the economy again. And lead to another Great Depression. And so people who fall through the cracks, can get help and not end up homeless and on the street.

Robert Redford: The Candidate (1972) Social Warfare Speech

Source:The Daily Journal

The movie The Candidate from 1972 where Robert Redford plays a young idealistic Progressive Senate candidate, who gets the Democratic nomination for this California Senate seat, running up against a three-term incumbent Republican Senator, the Washington insider of Washington insiders, to me represents what Progressive grassroots politics looks like.

The main character in the movie played by Bob Redford, plays someone from the Progressive movement. Not someone who graduates from law school and then gets a job on Capital Hill, or the Justice Department. But someone who’s from and worked in the Progressive movement. And has success in that, organizing workers so they can collectively bargain. 

Bill McCay played by Redford, essentially gets recruited as well as his name, by the Peter Boyle character. Another big shot Washington insider in the Democratic Party. Who runs political campaigns for a living, to run for the U.S. Senate. Because the Washington insider played by Peter Boyle believes he represents what voters at least in California are looking for. And because of who McCay's father is, might be the guy who can beat the Republican in the election. 

For Progressives who are interested in politics, The Candidate represents how to run for Public Office. By not starting off as a Washington insider, but working in the private sector at the grassroots level. And know exactly what that is like and then running for public office. By picking up some quality experience in your own movement and using that once you get in public office. 

Bill McCay in a lot of ways represents what American voters, well lets say they say they look for in politicians. Someone who speaks straight, is honest, tells the truth at least almost all the time. Tells people what they believe and what they want to do with a sound, clear consistent message. Who doesn't believe they are better than, lets say average people because they are running for office and have had a very good education. 

Bill McCay is not Joe Average who is just happy fixing cars or building houses and retiring and collecting a small pension and Social Security. With enough money to support his family. But he is someone who can communicate with those people because he has worked with them and helped them do better in life. Not someone who talks up to people, or talks down to people. But speaks in a straightforward lets say working class way that everyone can understand. But does it intelligently. 

Bill McCay a Progressive Democrat coming from the Left, but not someone with a new government program and tax to solve everyone's problems for them. But what he does is talk to people to see what they are thinking and to figure out how they are doing. And tells them what he believes should and can be done about those issues so those people can help themselves. And if you look at Bill McCay for Senate in 1972 and Bill Clinton for President in 1992, they aren't that different in how they approach, politics and communication.

Mises Media: Gerard Casey: Libertarian Anarchy: Against The State

Source:FreeState Now

Just to start off and I doubt I’m the first person to notice this and at risk of sounding awful and mean, doesn’t Gerard Casey, especially with that mustache, resemble Adolph Hitler?

I have a lot of respect for classical libertarianism, even as a Liberal. Even though I tend to disagree with it on foreign policy. Where Libertarians tend to be isolationists. Because libertarianism at its core is the real thing. And what it actually is about both economic and personal freedom. That Americans, have the right to live their own lives as long as they aren’t infringing on others freedom to live their own lives. And that it’s not anti-state, but anti-big state and anti-big government all together. So when Ron Paul says he’s against big government, you better believe him! And when Rick Santorum says he is against big government, you ask him, “so its okay with you if I watch an adult movie, or go to a club with dancers and so-forth?” Because he thinks those things should be outlawed, because he sees them as immoral. But Libertarians are the real thing when it comes to being against big government, because they actually are. And don’t just say they are against big government, because they believe it works for them politically.

It’s not Libertarianism in its real form that I’m against as a Liberal. Because real Libertarians are against big government. But they aren’t against government all together. And the key point being that people should be free to live their own lives. As long as they aren’t infringing on others to live there’s. So if two guys want to marry each other, Libertarians wouldn’t have a problem with that. Or if someone wants to go to an adult nightclub with strippers and so-forth, even male strippers, the Libertarian wouldn’t have a problem with that. But if someone breaks into someone else’s home without a good reason, or batters that person, or rapes that person, or does other things to infringe on innocent people’s freedom to live their lives, they believe that government has a role to protect us not from ourselves, but from people who would hurt us. See Libertarians, aren’t anti-government, but they are anti-big government. And believe that the government that we have today is too big and has too much responsibility when it comes to economic and personal issues.

People who I call Anarcho-Libertarians, who are Anarchists to be real about it. So I call them Anarcho-Libertarians, because even though they call themselves Libertarians, they aren’t just anti-big government, but they are anti-government period. And do not seem to have a role for government to do anything. And now even seem to believe that government arresting and prosecuting criminals who’ve hurt people, violates these criminals freedoms and constitutional rights. Freedom to do what, hurt innocent people? We do have the freedom to do that in this country. Americans tend to want big government out of our wallets, bedrooms, boardrooms and classrooms, out of our personal lives. But they do want government to disappear and not be there to do the things that we need it to do. And tend to believe in things like environmental protection and public education. But generally speaking, libertarianism in its real sense and not the anarcho version, has a real future in American politics.

The Gary Johnson‘s of the world have a real future in American politics. Because they are anti-big government. And even though they would like to see the Federal Government much smaller than it is today and would have to sell that to voters as far as how much smaller and why, they could succeed. Because they do believe there is a proper role of government and not looking to dismantle it. Just dismantle big government. But as far as Anarcho-Libertarians are concern, they are essentially Anarchists and are anti-government period. And perhaps would be better off moving to a country that doesn’t have any real government. Like Somalia and see how that works out for them.

The Humble Libertarian: Wes Messamore: Second Amendment Revolution: Maryland Handgun Ruling a Huge Victory For Gun Rights Advocates!

Source:FreeState Now

Just to be clear I’m pro-2nd Amendment and I believe that all adults in the United States that are of sound mind and aren’t criminals and are capable of managing guns, then they should be able to do that if they choose to and can afford it. But as long as we know that they are capable of managing the gun or guns they want to purchase and if they are qualified to manage these guns, then they should have the right to do so. As a Liberal I believe in live and let live, that is we have to live together as a society whether we like it or not, we should just let people live their own lives. And as long as we aren’t hurting innocent people with what they are doing. And we aren’t stuck paying for the consequences of their decisions. Then we should let people live their own lives.

C-SPAN: John Kerry: How do You Ask The Last Man to Die For a Mistake

Source:FRS FreeState

Its been said that presidents who have military or foreign policy experience, are less likely to commit American troops to combat in foreign nations, than presidents without that previous experience. Because they know exactly what they are putting those troops through and what they have to go through. And the sacrifices they and their families will make as a result and perhaps even the ultimate sacrifice they may make. I’ll give you a perfect example of that. When Dwight Eisenhower became President in 1953, one of the first things he looked to was to get American troops out of the Korean War. Because he saw it as a civil war.

Ronald Reagan a World War II veteran, never committed American troops into combat. We never went to war in his eight years as President. Jimmy Carter, another World War II veteran, never committed American troops to combat in his four years either. President George H.W. Bush did commit troops to the Gulf War in 1991. But for a very limited mission. Get Iraq out of Kuwait, not to invade and occupy Iraq. A big country of twenty-five million people, a mistake that his son wasn’t able to avoid twelve years later.

President George W. Bush, who never had combat experience, or foreign policy experience. Other than signing up for the reserves to avoid Vietnam service, commits American troops to two wars within seventeen months as President. In Afghanistan and Iraq. Two wars we are now trying to get out of ten years later. We’ll never know what type of president John Kerry would’ve made on foreign policy, or anything else. And I believe that’s unfortunate, because we are talking about a Vietnam veteran from the Baby Boom Generation. Who volunteered to serve his country in Vietnam, unlike George W. Bush who did everything he can to avoid service there.

But when you here Senator Kerry talk about foreign policy as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and as a senior Senator, you know that he doesn’t take these things lightly. And committing American troops to any war is a huge deal and shouldn’t be taken lightly. And when he here presidential candidates who have no decisions to make as candidates as far as what we should be doing as a country when it comes to foreign policy and they talk about a potential war with Iran, kinda lightly like committing troops to an operation, “like this is really not that big of a deal”, as you saw Senator Kerry on his Senate floor speech about an editorial that Mitt Romney wrote in the Washington Post today, you know the difference between someone who knows what they’re talking about, because they’ve been there and someone who doesn’t, because they haven’t.

Where Senator Kerry criticizes Governor Romney’s editorial criticizing President Obama’s policy on Iran, I know as someone that’s never served my country in the military or foreign service, that talking about committing American troops to any type of foreign wars is a huge deal. And shouldn’t be taken lightly and what people say on the campaign trail and what they can do once they get to office are two different things. And that its easy to talk tough on the campaign trail. But once you’re actually in office, it’s a much different story.