The Washington Post: Karen Tumulty: 'Joe Biden Learned The Hard Way There is No Middle Ground On Abortion'

Source:The Washington Post- Joe Biden: flip-flopping on the Hyde Amendment

"There has long been a relatively safe space for a Democratic politician, particularly a Catholic one, to inhabit on the morally fraught issue of abortion.

It was the stance that then-Vice President Joe Biden took during a 2012 debate: “Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life,” Biden said. “But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews. . . . I do not believe we have a right to tell other people — women — that they can’t control their body.”

At the time, that blanket declaration was enough to satisfy most Democrats. It is not anymore — as Biden learned this week, when the man who leads all the polls for the Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential nomination was thrown off balance on the question of government funding for abortion."

Read the rest of Karen Tumulty's piece at The Washington Post

Source:ABC News: Joe Biden- 'Flips on The Hyde Amendment'- Joe Biden; doing his Mitt Romney, over the Hyde Amendment 

"2020 Democratic candidate Joe Biden reversed his stance on a measure that prevents using federal funding for abortions.When former Vice President Joe Biden announced that he was running for President last month, his message and appeal was basically that he wasn't President Donald Trump and that he was different."

If you look at Donald Trump before Barack Obama before he became President and then after he became President, the so-called Donald was basically a mainstream Democrat. A wealthy, New York City businessman who backed Democrats for most of his career. And then a guy named Barack Obama becomes President the first African-American in American history, with the bogus ( to be kind ) and racist birther movement around him and The Donald decides that he wants to be in politics too and becomes the champion of the Far-Right with the birther movement back in 2011.

And then in 2015 The Donald decides he wants to be President after 6 years of a Progressive, African-American President running the country and gets behind the Far-Right on everything in launching his own Nationalist movement in the country and basically other than perhaps tariffs and immigration, reverses course on almost every single political position that he had before. Making Mitt Romney look like the most principled politician that this country has ever seen.

Joe Biden, is running not just as the anti-Trump, but as someone who will change the character of the presidency and get it out of Donald Trump's morality toilet and return honor and decency to the country.

Kind of hard to make that case when on Wednesday of last week you're saying that your support for the Hyde Amendment, ( that was proposed by Representative Henry Hyde in 1976 ) that was passed by Congress in 1976 that then Senator Joe Biden voted for and continued to support during his entire career in the Senate, was a deeply heartfelt view that American taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for someone else's abortions, ( except in the cases of life and health of the mother, or rape or incest ) and then on Thursday announce you can no longer support an amendment that denies abortion rights to low-income women, even though on Wednesday that you already knew that low-income women couldn't get taxpayer assistance to pay for their abortions.

The Hyde Amendment to me at least is not about whether abortion should be legal in this country: I'm pro-choice on practically everything short of people hurting innocent people with what they're doing, including abortion because I don't believe life starts at conception, but at the last stages of the woman's pregnancy. It's not a question of whether abortion should be legal in America or not, but who should pay for it.

We all make our own choices and we all have our own personal freedom in this country. We also all have our own personal responsibility in this country and are held accountable for our own personal decisions. Why should abortion be any different? I'm not talking about forcing women who are raped including by their own male relatives to be forced to carry that pregnancy to its end. Or denying women abortion even though they need it to protect their health and even life. The Hyde Amendment, has all of these exceptions in it. I'm just saying that American taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize the abortions of others other than the exceptions that I just laid out. And until last Thursday, Joe Biden shared this exact same position and held that exact same position since 1976 when he voted for the Hyde Amendment when it was passed in that Congress.

People who oppose the Hyde Amendment from the Left, argue that Hyde Amendment denies low-income women the same reproductive rights as women with means in this country who aren't poor and who can afford to get an abortion either from their private health insurance or out of their own pockets. And they're completely right about that, but that's not the issue. This shouldn't be a newsflash for anyone: low-income women simply don't have the same freedom as middle or high income women in this country. And low-income Americans regardless of gender, or race or ethnicity don't have the same freedom in America as middle or high-income Americans either. But that's not unfair, that's just life. You want to have a lot of freedom in America, you need to have the income to finance that freedom. That's just how America has always worked and how it should always be.

George Carlin: 'Question Everything'

Source:HBO- As great as George Carlin Was, RIP: even question George when he tells you something

"All credit for the video goes to its producers."

Source:George Carlin

At risk of sounding serious for a minute: ( and it might only be a minute ) do you want to live in a liberal democracy where you have the right to think for yourself, or do you want to live in a prison your whole life ( like a communist state ) and be told what to do, what to think and how to think, because that's what this is about. If you are someone who thinks for yourself and lives an evidence based life based off on reason, ( to paraphrase Ayn Rand ) then of course you are going to question everything.

We live in a country with career politicians who get paid very well with a benefits package that rivals a lot of great CEO's with their health care, housing, retirement package all at the expense of the people who voted them into office and the people who were smart enough to vote for someone else, who do only what they believe they need to do in order to get reelected. They routinely take positions based on what can help them politically at that moment, ( take Joe Biden for a moment on the Hyde Amendment ) or help them get elected to a higher office and get paid to bullshit us.

So I have to ask this question: with so many people like this who are supposed to represent us in government, would you just automatically take their word every time they opened their mouth like you were some type of slave at North Korean work camp, or would you bother to use your brain for a moment ( perhaps even longer than that ) even if it meant putting your smartphone down for an entire moment ( or even longer than that ) and ask yourself: "does this guy really believe what's coming out of his own mouth right now, or is he just saying and doing this to help him politically?" And of course it could be a female politician who is also a professional garbage thrower ( to be kind ) trying to feed us garbage ( to be kind ) as well.

And it's not just our wonderful career politicians who at times are less productive than your average person on Unemployment or Welfare, who just get paid ( to be kind ) or take our money for themselves who give so many Americans great incentive to question everything that they do and say, who make great cynics out of us at all.

From our parents who raise us as hypocrites who our entire childhoods telling us not to do what they did when they were growing up and if we disobey, there will be steep consequences for that, even though they routinely got away with doing the exact same things growing up that they don't want their kids to do. Or supervisors at work who seem to know less about their business than the people who are supposed to work for them. The coaches that know less about their sport than their own players. Anyone who lives life anywhere in the world who doesn't question everything that they hear, is living life in a coma and watching the world go by.

Dan Mitchell: ‘An Emerging Anti-Socialist Wing of The Democratic Party?’

Source:Aww Memes- "

SOCIALISM SIGN UP HERE NO WORK FREE STUFF WORK HARD KEEP HALF What's ...

Aww Memes

Meme, Work, and Best: SOCIALISM SIGN UP HERE NO WORK FREE STUFF WORK"

Source:The New Democrat

“Since I’m a policy economist, I rarely comment on political matters.

But I am worried that the Democratic Party is veering too far to the left. Bernie Sanders, an out-of-the-closet socialist is leading the way, followed closely by other leading Democrats with hard-left policy agendas, such as Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren.

But not every 2020 candidate is hopping on the socialism bandwagon. Some of the major candidates, such as Joe Biden, have avoided saying anything favorable about socialism.

And two of the candidates have explicitly rejected the poisonous ideology.

Interestingly, they’re both from Colorado.

CNN reports that the former governor, John Hickenlooper. received a very hostile reception when he rejected socialism.”

Read the rest of Dan Mitchell’s piece at International Liberty

Source:Fortune Magazine: 'John Hickenlooper: Meet the 2020 Candidate'- Meet another governor that almost no one has never heard of

"He’s the former Governor of Colorado."

Dan Mitchell is right here, but for obvious reasons: the only evidence that you need to know that not all Democrats and not even a majority and probably more like a small minority of Democrats haven’t all moved to Cuba, Venezuela, Scandinavia ideologically, mentally, and culturally is that Joe Biden is the clear frontrunner right now. When you’re getting 30-40 of all Democratic support right now and you are running for President, you know that the Democratic Party isn’t a socialist party yet. Why, for the obvious reasons that Joe Biden is not a Socialist and never has been.

If you look at the top 5-10 Democratic presidential candidates right now as far as their support, really only Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren are the Socialists running for President. Bernie, being an out-of-the-closet Socialist ( as Dan Mitchell says ) and damn proud of it. With Liz Warren, being a trapped in the closet Socialist who believes in and proposes the exact same policies as Bernie except for a complete government takeover of the health insurance system, but they essentially believe in the same things ideologically.

Bernie and Liz,  would be part of the Center-Left in Europe, but the only problem that they have is that they are running for President of the United States and they are part of the Far-Left here. And the other problem that they have is that they’re both running for and competing for the same voters in the Democratic Party. Whether 20-30% of the Democratic Party are now Socialists, that alone is not enough to win the Democratic nomination and when you have two candidates cancelling each other out because they’re going for the same voters, that makes it even more difficult for even of them to emerge and get beyond the Far-Left of the party.

The reasons why Vice President Biden is doing so well right now, is because you still have a strong Center-Left of the party that still dominates the leadership of the party. Which Joe Biden has been part of his entire political career. And most if not all Democrats ( even if they’re Socialists with Che Guevara t-shirts in the hearts ) want to win in 2020 and are smart enough to know that a Socialist doesn’t win back Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida even against President Donald Trump. And a Socialist wouldn’t even be able to compete with President Trump in North Carolina, Texas, or Arizona. All states except for perhaps Texas where a Joe Biden could compete and perhaps even beat President Trump in.

As far as John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennett, both 2020 presidential candidates: they’re both part of the Center-Left ( the real Progressive Democrats ) wing of the Democratic Party that Joe Biden is running away with right now. And it’s good to see that they’re not Socialists either, ( as if the jury never came back on that ) but they’re probably room for only one Joe Biden type of Center-Left presidential candidate in the party right now, which would explain why he’s currently running away with the polls right now.

Reason Magazine: 'Why Bernie Sanders Communist Misadventures Still Matter'

Source:Reason Magazine- Bernie Sanders, hasn't always looked like someone's grandfather. LOL

"Sanders no longer favors government takeover of "the major means of production." But his four-decade quest for political revolution continues."

Source:Reason Magazine

Perhaps we can file Bernie Sanders even further Far-Leftist leanings back in the 1970s and 1980s as being young and stupid. And like a lot of people from his generation, perhaps he was someone who hadn't recovered from the 1960s yet emotionally and mentally. And to be completely honest here, ( for a change, LOL ) who isn't stupid when they are young and then once we get some real world experience, we become smarter ( if we have a brain and are capable of learning ) and who would want to be judged by how dumb they were as a young adult when they are middle age or in Bernie's case a senior citizen now.

Another way to look at Bernie Sanders flirtation with state socialism ( if you want to call it that and not communism ) is that no one can run away from their record. ( Don't believe me, ask Donald Trump ) And we're always accountable for everything that we do and say no matter how long we live and how much we change. So it's one thing for someone to say that their views changed and as they got more information and facts But that begs the questions: why did that person change their views and what have they learned. As well as why did they believe what they believed when they were younger.

I'm not saying that Bernie Sanders is a State-Socialist or a Communist today. I'm also not saying that Bernie is a Eugene Debbs Socialist where he wants the national government to run and manage the entire economy, but where personal freedom would be vast and we could even own our own personal property like our homes and perhaps small businesses. He's been in Congress since 1991 and at least since he's been in the Senate since 2007, today he's a Democratic Socialist at least as far as his Congressional record in the Senate at least and his current positions and proposals. But your record is exactly that and similar to your brain, it's not something that you can really ever run away from and is something that Democratic voters at least will be able to use to judge whether Bernie Sanders should be their presidential nominee or not. 

The Federalist Coalition: Justin Stapley- Karl Marx vs. Thomas Jefferson: Liberal Democracy vs. Communism

Source:Slide Player- "7 Thomas Jefferson Karl Marx Example Subjects to Contrast”

Source:The New Democrat

“Our political conflict can often be boiled down to the stark differences in how Karl Marx and Thomas Jefferson viewed history and their different beliefs about the role of government in crafting the future.”

Read the rest of Justin Stapley’s piece at The Federalist Coalition

Whether Karl Marx is the founder of Communists and communism and the founding father of Socialists and socialism in general, I don’t know that and I’m not sure anyone else does. So instead of writing a piece about Thomas Jefferson, who I believe at least is the father of American liberal democracy, if not liberal democracy in general, with Karl Marx who perhaps at best might be more of a spiritual figure and leader for Socialists and Communist, but perhaps not their founding father, I believe a more appropriate piece would be to look at Thomas Jefferson who for me at least represents the Liberals and liberalism ( Classical Liberals and classical liberalism, if you prefer ) versus Communists and communism.

I think the best way to compare liberal democracy and communism, is to look at what the Founding Fathers in America ( our Founding Liberals ) created in the 1700s and then look at what the Bolsheviks ( Russian Communists ) created in Russia when they created the Soviet Union there 100 years ago.

The Founding Fathers, created a liberal democracy in America built around individual rights and limited government. And of course they really only meant for this freedom to be for European, especially Anglo-Saxon men who owned property, but the fact even if it wasn’t intentional the rights that they created were for everyone in America regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or religion.

The Russian Communists, created a superstate in Russia ( known as the Soviet Union ) that was built around one central, national government in Moscow. Where individual freedom of all levels and all forms was highly discouraged if not outlawed, where everyone was supposed to be taken care of by the national state instead. That is how Socialists tend to operate whether they are democratic or communist: you give up individual freedom and choice, in exchange for personal and economic security.

The real differences between liberal democracy and communism comes down to power and who gets to decide: in a liberal democracy, the power is given to the people to manage their own affairs and lives. In a communist state, the power is given to the national state and is supposed to be used to serve the people. It generally if never works like that in a communist state where those countries tend to the poorest and most corrupt in the world, but that’s what Communists tend to promise for their people. This debate is not about big government versus small government, but about power and who should have it: the state or the people.

“AF-184: Today on the Ancestral Findings Podcast I’ll answer the questions… Who was Thomas Jefferson? Beyond being our third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, who was he? Where did he come from, what was his family like, and what other contributions did he make to our country?”

Source:Ancestral Findings: Thomas Jefferson- Who’s Who in the American Revolution?'- Thomas Jefferson: the father of liberal democracy?

Crash Course: Craig Benzine- 'Freedom of Speech: Government and Politics'

Source:Crash Course- Thanks to our First Amendment: thank our Founding Liberals.

"Today, FINALLY, Craig is going to talk about Free Speech! Now, free speech is so important because it not only allows you to critique the government, but it also protects you from the government. But it's essential to remember that not ALL speech is protected equally under the First Amendment, and just because you have a right to free speech doesn't mean your employer, for instance, can't fire you for something you say (unless your work for the government and then things get a bit more complicated). So we'll take a look at a couple significant Supreme Court cases that have gotten us to our current definition of free speech, and we'll also discuss some of the more controversial aspects of free speech - like hate speech."

Source:Crash Course

From Wikipedia

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which respect an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights."

When it comes to the U.S. Constitution and the amendments to it and our Bill of Rights, I'm not an absolutist on anything, but neither is the U.S. Constitution and our Founding Fathers. ( Our Founding Liberals ) We have a right to self-defense in America which even includes firearms, but we don't have a right to open fire and fire randomly at people at a church, or restaurant, or some other public place where a lot of people could be there.

When it comes to the First Amendment: we have a right to believe whatever we want too and for the most part even have the right to say whatever we want to, but we can't order for someone to be beat up or killed. We can believe in and practice any religion that we want, or no religion at all, but we can't kill or physically attack other people or places in the same of our religion.

When it comes to free speech, I'm not an absolutist, but as a Liberal who of course believes in liberal democracy I guess you can call me a fundamentalist. ( And this is coming from an Agnostic ) It's not the job of government or anyone else really to tell people what they can believe and how they should think. It's the job of government and ourselves as individuals to protect our physical safety and economic security, but not our feelings.

Liberal democracy, is not easy and you really have to want it to be able to live with it, because it comes with a lot of rights and responsibilities. You have the ability to say whatever you want and believe in it ( short of inciting violence, falsely accusing people, or false advertising ) but so does everyone else including people you don't like, tend to disagree with, or even hate what they have to say. But then you have to the First Amendment right to make the case for why the people you disagree with are simply wrong and then they can respond to you. And maybe you can have a great debate about what you believe and why you oppose what you oppose.

That's called liberal democracy, free speech, and just one thing that  has always made America great and exceptional. And as long as we stand by and up for our liberal democratic values like free speech, no one will ever have to try to make America great again, because we'll always be great and exceptional. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Critical Past: Wendell Willkie: 'Arrives in His Hometown & Formally Accepts The Republican Presidential Nomination'

Source:Critical Past- Liberal Republican Wendell Willie: accepting the 1940 GOP presidential nomination.

"Historic Stock Footage Archival and Vintage Video Clips in HD.

Wendell Willkie arrives in his home town and formally accepts the Republican Presidential nomination before the crowd.

Wendell Willkie arrives in his home town after being nominated as the Presidential candidate. Wendell Willkie in a car. A large crowd gathers to greet him. Crowd cheering and applauding. He stands on the podium and addresses the crowd. He formally accepts the Republican Presidential nomination before the crowd. Addressing the crowd, he states that the domestic and foreign policies of the New Deal is leading the nation into war. He endorses the draft for US defense and dares President Roosevelt to meet him for a public debate on questions vital to all Americans. Location: Elwood Indiana. Date: August 19, 1940."

Source:Critical Past:

By 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt had his New Deal passed through Congress and the Great Depression was over, but the devastating affects of it were still there and the people were still feeling it. Business investment and economic growth were still low and unemployment was still high. It wasn't the New Deal that saved the American economy: it helped in alleviating pain of the Great Depression, but the economy still wasn't back to anything near to what it was in 1928 before the stock market crash.

President Roosevelt, was a popular President, but there was a real case to be made against him and real room to run against him for President and offer a new direction for the country, which is what businessman Wendell Willkie who was a Liberal Republican offered in 1940. Liberal in the classical and real sense, not made up or stereotypical, big government, socialist sense. FDR, wasn't a Socialist either, but his big, central, government approach government approach with his New Deal, was very different from Wendell was offering which was about more individualism private business investment, as apposed to FDR's Federal Government investment approach.

The 1940 presidential election was an interesting election for multiple reasons: you had a popular President against a popular opponent. FDR, was a popular President, but Wendell Willkie managed about 45% of the popular vote which is more than Barry Goldwater in 1964 and President Jimmy Carter in 1980. Wendell with his 10 states won more than President Carter in 1980. It was also an an election where you had a Progressive Democrat versus a Liberal Republican. Willkie, was to the Left of FDR on civil rights and civil liberties. FDR, was to the Left of Wendell on economic policy. And they were similar on foreign policy and national security with both men being strong liberal internationalists and somewhat hawkish.

1940, represents a time in American politics where the country wasn't so divided politically. When Liberals, were Liberals. Conservatives, were Conservatives. Progressives, were Progressives. Socialists, weren't afraid to be Socialists. ( Unless they were in Hollywood ) Where Americans regardless of their political labels didn't hate each other simply because of their politics which is how you can get a presidential election between a Franklin Roosevelt and Wendell Willkie, because their differences were about politics and policy. Not race, ethnicity, religion, or culture.  

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