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

Source:The Daily Beast- Secretary Hillary R. Clinton: 2016 Democratic presidential candidate.

SourceThe Daily Review

"Forget the fake facts, the Mexicans-are-rapists racism, the stupefying ignorance of international trade, and the unambiguous and unapologetic anti-Muslim bigotry. Forget even the fact that he’s just a gold-plated Billy Mays who has pitched every goddamned crap product from frozen steaks to a failed namesake university to mattresses."

From The Daily Beast

"Donald Trump calls Hillary Clinton to interview her before her "Tonight Show" appearance."

From The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon

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.

Free Association: Stephen M. Walt- How the U.S. Inspires Anti-American Terrorism

Source:Free Association-

Source:The New Democrat

Watching the GOP presidential debate last night, I paid close attention to Senator Ted Cruz. For no other reasons to see how he would try to differ from the realty TV character The Donald, Senator Marco Rubio and Senator Rand Paul, on foreign policy and national security issues. As well as the War on Terror and cvil liberties. Senator Rubio, Generation X's version of Dick Cheney on these issues, but at least he's consistent. Senator Paul, Generation X's version of Barry Goldwater. Fiscally conservative across the board, even as it relates to national security. Again his consistency is something to respect whether you agree with Rand or not.

Senator Cruz, the most interesting person up there and not because he's got an Anglo-Saxon Texas accent, to go with a Spanish face. But because he knows he can't beat Donald Trump by trying to more like The Donald. He probably can't win the GOP presidential nomination by being another Barry Goldwater. With the Christian-Right and Neoconservatives still calling the plays. So he's trying to carve out this new patch of space when it comes to foreign affairs in the GOP. That says, 'America, should not just worry about America first, but only worry about America. And when it comes to foreign affairs oversees, we should fund the lesser of all evils which are the monarchs and military dictators. To keep peace and stability in the Middle East.'

I don't know where Ted Cruz is getting his military and foreign policy advice, but it can't be from people who actually know what they're talking about. What the Senator doesn't seem to understand is that what fuels anti-American terrorism is the fact that America backs government's that these Jihadist's and just average people on the streets in these countries who aren't the bad people there, hate. The U.S. Government, is not popular in Egypt and the broader Middle East, because we've backed their dictators and authoritarian regimes over the years that have kept their people down and their countries in third-world status. That is how the Jihadist's have gotten their start and have kept going and have been attacking us at least since the late 1970s.

You don't defeat terrorism by backing authoritarian dictatorships that fuel terrorism by how they treat their people. What you do is cut off the dictator's legs and encourage people on the ground to stand up and demand change. As well as working with responsible government's like in Iraq and Turkey, to defeat the Jihadist's on the ground. And give the people in those countries the opportunity to create their own civilized societies. Create their own countries that are responsive to their people and there to serve their people and not crush the opposition, or simply look just to stay in power. How different would Egypt be today if we had never backed Hosni Mubarak. Or Iran had we never had backed the Shah.

Hollywood Bug: Will Ferrell is Back- As George W. Bush on SNL

Source: Hollywood Bug- Will Ferrell, as President George W. Bush.

Source:The Daily Review

Watching the Republican debates tonight, just as a blogger and not a fan of really anyone up there, it does get me thinking about how great George W. Bush looks in comparison. The real G.W. could ask the question, "do you miss me yet?" And Barack Obama would have nothing to do that question. The Republican Party today looks like someone's home when the parents go out-of-town and forget to get anyone to babysit their kids. Peanut butter, all over the walls. The dog, eating half of the furniture, because no one has fed him in weeks. The kids, being expelled from school, because they haven't been there in weeks, etc.

The Republican Party today looks looks like chaos in America. No real leadership from anyone other than Governor John Kasich and Senator Lindsay Graham. Who both during a good week maybe hit ten-percent each. And then they both throw a big bash celebrating that they're finally in double-figures. Money they should've spent on advertising and their ground campaign. I don't miss the days of G.W. Bush, except as a Democrat it was more fun and real talking to and about Republicans back then, because at least they had a real agenda that most of the party could get behind. But that GOP has been abandoned by a new crew that debates each other about who hates Latinos and Muslims more.

The Republican Party under Dick Nixon, Gerry Ford, Ron Reagan, George H.W. Bush and yes even G.W. Bush, who negotiated with their enemies, (including Democrats) who said they, 'rather have most of the loaf now and come back for the rest later.' ( Which is Washington speak for compromise) now says, "surrender now and I won't destroy you and shut down the government." The Republican Party that supposedly believes in the republic which is a form of government, now doesn't believe in government. And will shut down the government if Democrats and Republicans vote to fund portions of the government they disagree with.

Whatever you think of the Bush years and for me personally as bad as they were, they were eight great years of disastrous comedy, at least it wasn't chaos. You had a Republican Party, that knew what it believed and what polices they would fight for and push. And a Democratic Party that didn't, at least until they won Congress back in 2006, but knew what they were against. Which looks like the glory days of American politics compared with where we are now. G.W. Bush, was like the single-father of a family who just had too much and was overwhelmed and left his kids with no supervision for vacation and came back and saw nothing but chaos when he came back from vacation.
Source:Hollywood Bug

Free Association: Sheldon Richman- The Phony Mystery of Why They Hate Us

Source:Free Association-

Source:The New Democrat

I don't tend to use the phrase of 'why they hate us', because it is a Far-Left way of almost justifying the 9-11 attacks without actually saying that. As if the 9-11 attacks are justifiable revenge for American Middle-Eastern policy. And then you have to go into who is they and do they really hate us or not. Its clear the Jihadist's not only hate American foreign policy and national security policy, America values and are liberal democratic values, American individualism and everything else. But that doesn't mean the average person in the Arab World hates us.

But the average person in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt and other countries in the Arab World if anything likes those things about Americans. They don't like everything about American culture, but they tend to like us. And a reason why a lot of them have emigrated over here to make a better life for themselves and to escape the authoritarianism from their own country. They want to build a quality life for themselves and live in freedom while they stay true to their own Arab and religious values that they brought from home.

I can give you excellent reasons why Arabs hate American foreign policy and our national security policy as it relates to the Middle-East and perhaps in general. Its the hypocrisy of it. We claim to be big champions of liberal democracy in individual freedom on one hand, as we back big government statist  authoritarian regimes who are the complete opposite of what we preach and practice at home. We claim to support individual freedom at home and even abroad while we back Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and his authoritarian regime. The same thing with the Shah in Iran in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. President Jimmy Carter even called the Shah a model of stability and leadership in the Middle East in 1977. And the Shah is thrown out of power by his own people just more than a year later.

America, at one point during the Cold War, were allies with Saddam Hussein in Iraq, because he invaded the Islamic Republic of Iran. America has a seventy-year history of backing authoritarian dictators and regimes while we claim to be champions of liberal democracy and freedom. And Arabs on the ground who hate their authoritarian regimes, see through the American hypocrisy of it and stand up and even risk their lives as a result. And fall victims to Islamic theocratic radicals who if anything are even worst than the authoritarians that they want to replace. Which is what happened to Iran in the late 1970s as they became the Islamic Republic of Iran. And what happened to Afghanistan in the 1990s after they defeated Russia with American help and Islamic theocratic Taliban comes to power there.

The justification for American backing of Middle-Eastern dictators and their regimes has always been, "that if we don't do this, those regimes will fall, because they don't have the backing of their people and something worst will come in and replace it. Who would be anti-American." Well, what do you call the Islamic Republic in Iran? They came to power by overthrowing the Iranian Monarchy that was backed by America and Britain. What do you call ISIS in Iraq and Syria? They came to power in Iraq, because Iraq couldn't or wouldn't defend itself and had their own corrupt government led by Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki. We're still backing the Islamic Kingdom in Saudi Arabia, who still treats their women like slaves and second-class women. Who put people to death for being gay. Who finances schools and groups that put out this anti-Western and American propaganda.

Not saying that if America stopped backing Middle-Eastern dictators, or that he we never did that in the first place, that those countries would back Western liberal democratic values and individual freedom. Maybe they would replace those military and Marxist dictatorships with Far-Right Islamic theocratic states. The Arab World has no history of liberal democracy, liberal democratic values and individual freedom. But if you want to promote liberal democracy and freedom, you do that by encouraging people to get behind it and backing people who support it and would bring it to their country. Not by backing regimes that are anti-freedom and completely Un-democratic. What America has done is to back authoritarianism and statism in the name of American foreign policy interests. And the people in those countries see right through that propaganda.

The Tonight Show Johnny Carson: Shelley Winters (1987)

Source:The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson- actress/comedian Shelly winters in 1987.

Source:The Daily Review

If Shelley Winters wasn't the great actress that she was, she probably would have been a standup comedian, or a variety show comedian doing skit-comedy, or a talk show host. She was an enormous talent and personality who had an incredible wit and intelligence. Literally not just one of the best actress's who has ever lived, but one of the greatest personalities and comedians as well. Great entertainer who reminds me a lot of the great Ginger Rogers. As far as an entertainer who combined such great talent for the dramatic, who also had a great personality and was very funny. Who was both very adorable and yet very bright and funny all in the same package.

Johnny Carson, was perfect for Shelley, because he was also very bright and had a very quick off the cuff humor and perhaps shared the exact same sense of humor as Shelley. So they related very well and could make fun of the same things and shared similar experiences. Like being married enough times to produce enough kids to fill up the L.A. Memorial Coliseum. Or both having enough spouses combined (if not by themselves) to fill out an LAPD police lineup. They also knew each other very well. When Johnny was interviewing Shelley Winters, or someone like that, or a Burt Reynolds, Jimmy Stewart, he was interviewing actors who could match him joke for joke and even sound funnier.

Myrtle Beach News Examiner: Norman Byrd- A President Ben Carson to Police Liberal Colleges For Political Bias

Source:Liberty Pen- Dr. Ben Carson.

Source:The Daily Review

Presidential dreamer Dr. Ben Carson, the last few weeks has made it a point to show people how strongly he's in favor of Freedom of Speech and opposes political correctness, which is a form of fascism that comes from the Left and the Right. And has said things like, "PC is dangerous because it muffles people. This country was founded upon on Freedom of Speech, or thought and expression." Which is a great thing to say and believe and I agree with that, but saying those words aren't worth the air, or paper you used to express them if you don't believe in what you're actually saying.

But almost at the exact same time he proposes if he were to ever become president and his fantasy came to real-life, to use Federal taxpayer dollars and the U.S. Department of Education, that a lot of supposed Conservatives believe shouldn't exist in the first place, to monitor college and students for what he would call liberal bias and Un-American propaganda and speech. And threaten to strip those colleges of their Federal funding if they don't comply with his rule when it comes to speech on campus. I'm obviously not old enough to remember the 1950s and Senator Joe McCarthy and what others in Congress were doing in the 1950s, being born in the 1970s myself. But this looks like McCarthyism in the 21st Century to me.

Political correctness and other forms of fascism, are not left or right, but wrong. Undemocratic, anti-free speech, anti-personal freedom, pro-big government and dictatorial rule. Political correctness from the Far-Left is well-known and famous. With so-called Social Justice Warriors wanting a society where minorities wouldn't have to hear any critical or offensive speech towards them. Even if the speaker's are right in what they say about minorities and minority groups. But its just as bad if not worst coming from the Far-Right with their goals of having a country that thinks and looks at the world they way they want them to even through government force. That you comply with what they believe, or else and or else has to do with government sanctions and stripping funding.

I'm not impress with Dr. Carson at all other than his professional background and he seems like a very intelligent and likable guy. Just not when he's talking about politics and expressing political opinions. He gives the term amateur new meaning when it comes to first-time political candidates and gets stuck either with making hypocritical statements like when it comes to political correctness, or speaking about issues he apparently knows very little if anything about. Like national security, where his own staff has admitted he needs to do a lot of homework. I see him as a lot more qualified being a hipster motivational speaker, or talk show host, perhaps like Tony Robbins and Dr. Phil McGraw, than actually running for, gee I don't know, the most powerful and important office in the world. Which of course is President of the United States.

If you believe in Freedom of Speech and are against political correctness, great! I and a solid majority of Americans outside of the New-Left, Millennial Generation and Christian-Right, agree with you. But again free speech is not speech that you agree with. It is also speech that you may disagree with, find offensive, sinful and even dangerous. To say you support free speech when it comes from your side, but fascism for everyone else, is like a company CEO who says he supports capitalism for the working people, but socialism for companies and executives when the executives run business's under ground and need to be bailed out. No one in their right mind would take that person seriously.

America, moved past the 1950s officially over fifty-years ago and culturally at least since the late 1960s. Women not just work, but most people don't have a problem with that. Gays, are no longer subjected to live in prisons, mental hospitals and closets, simply for being gay. America, is just a lot different culturally than it was fifty-years ago and has a lot more personal freedom now. Freedom that we've always had to live and think individually, but now are no longer looked down upon generally if we have different political views and different ways of living. The Christian-Right, has never gotten over that and have been looking for ways to take us back to the 1950s ever since. And there form of political correctness fascism would be one way to accomplish that.
Source:Liberty Pen

David S. D'Amato: The Most Liberal Value: Free Speech

Source:The Daily Review

If someone told you that believe in free speech all the time, except when someone says something that they disagree with, find offensive, or offends people they believe deserves special protection, how would you respond to that? Someone says something that offends someone all the time in America. Whether the supposed target of the speech is right to be offended or not. Welcome to liberal democracy where you always have to the right to express yourself. The right for people to be intelligent and ignorant in the same society and even in the same person.

Again, we're talking about expression and speech. Not politeness, or meanness. Free speech in America is a guaranteed constitutional to a liberal amount of free speech that covers both politeness and meanness. As well as criticism and constructive criticism. Which means Americans have a hell of a lot of freedom to express themselves. That is what liberal free speech is about. Our Founding Fathers, (Our Founding Liberals) made Freedom of Speech our First Amendment for a very good reason. They saw it as our most important constitutional right.

No such thing as liberalism without free speech, free expression, freedom of assembly, the freedom of beliefs and philosophy including freedom of, or from religion. Without these guaranteed liberal constitutional rights liberalism doesn't exist and we're left with a world with one statist collectivist ideology after another with no one on the Left promoting freedom and free democracy. Except for perhaps today's so-called Progressives, Democratic Socialists really, who are more interested in the collective than individual rights including free speech.

Without liberalism and Liberals, we don't have the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Think about that for a second for anyone who wants to or claims liberalism as their political philosophy. Liberalism, the philosophy of liberty and individualism, as well as tolerance and equality, just as long as they're not forced upon people by the state. Without liberalism we don't have all of those guaranteed individual rights that Millennial's today have no problem taking advantage of when they're expressing their own views. Just as long as others aren't able to do the same when they say things that these college students disagree with.

If someone wants to convince me they're a Liberal, I'm going to ask them about free speech. I imagine their first answer will be something to the effect that they're in favor of it. That will be the easy part, but then like a good prosecutor that I'm not I'll ask them about political correctness, critical speech and even offensive speech. If they say they have no issues with redneck or Christian jokes as far as people having the right to make those comments, or that they agree with them, I'll agree with that person on that.

But then I'll ask them, "how about minorities and Muslims? Do you support free speech or political correctness? Do you believe minorities deserve special protection that majorities don't when it comes to criticism and humor, or that everyone has the right to free speech regardless of who they're speaking about?" Depending on how they answer those questions will determine if they're a Liberal or not. The person who says they're a Liberal and supports free speech regardless of who, or what it is about, will be the Liberal. At least when it comes to free speech. I would also want to know how they feel about Freedom of Choice in general and the Right to Privacy. Government's role in helping who are struggling, to use as examples. But my first question would about free speech.

Liberalism, of course is not just about free speech. Liberalism is about individual rights and free choice, quality opportunity for everyone to succeed and that government even has a role here to see that everyone can succeed in society. But a big part of liberalism has to do with free choice and free expression. Our liberal free speech rights, our liberal rights to express ourselves. Including public anger at our government when they do something that we hate and strongly disagree with and that even includes flag burning. Something that I'm against, but I support the right of others to disagree with me on that. Without freedom of speech as a liberal value, you don't have liberalism. It would be like being a Socialist who doesn't believe in the welfare state. A Libertarian who doesn't believe in the Right to Privacy. The philosophy would be destroyed as a result.

Richard Ebeling: 'Democratic Socialism Means The Loss of Liberty'

Source:Economic Policy Journal- if I was forced to testify under oath, I would say these folks are Bernie Sanders supporters.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Richard Ebeling emails:

Dear Bob,

I have a new article on the “EpicTimes” news and commentary website on “‘Democratic Socialism’ Means the Loss of Liberty.”

Democratic Party hopeful Bernie Sanders has recently delivered a speech explaining what he means by “democratic socialism.” It turns out that that what he means is Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 “economic Bill of Rights,” in which FDR called for everyone to have a government-given entitlement to a job, a “living” wage, “adequate” food, clothing and “free time,” as well as a “decent” home and health care.

These are labeled “rights” because people are not truly “free” when the needs and necessities of life are not “freely” available to all. In this FDR and Sanders have merely picked up on a theme in Karl Marx that the only person who is really free is the individual who does not have to do anything that he does not want to do to get things he wants.

But since little of value is “free” in life because of scarcity – the limitedness of means to use to achieve our desired ends – if we don’t work ourselves to get what we want, then someone else must do the work and be compelled to part with the fruits of his own labor through government taxation and redistribution.

At the end of the day, the “freedom” dreamed of by Bernie Sanders and other “democratic socialists” (or American “progressives”) imposes government command over all, some of whom must be coerced to give up what they have produced, and others who become political dependents, getting from government to “set them free” from material wants, by being confined to the standards and requirements of what eligibility for these “entitlements” imposes.

Moving further down this road will only reduce the liberty of the citizenry even more than is already the case." 

From Robert Wenzel

With this piece I'm going to layout what democratic socialism is and what Senator Bernie Sanders is running on as a Democratic Socialist for president and the results and what comes from democratic socialist policies.

Richard Ebeling, is right when he says that Bernie Sanders economic vision for America is what President Franklin Roosevelt laid out in his 1944 Economic Bill of Rights speech. Not talking about nationalizing private industries and companies other than health insurance and perhaps health care in general. 

What Democratic Socialists in America want to do is build off both the New Deal and the Great Society and create things like a guaranteed national basic income, attempting to outlaw poverty with a fifteen-dollar an hour living wage, plus government-run health care, guaranteed affordable housing, to use as examples. Democratic Socialists, want a superstate and regulatory state, to be balanced in with the American private enterprise system.

The problems with democratic socialism is that its very expensive. By simply saying all of these new government benefits can be paid for simply by taxing the rich 50, 60, 70% or more, is not believable. The IRS, will never see that money from the rich, because the rich would end up moving that money out of the country before they get their tax bills. So of course the middle class would get stuck with these huge government funded tax bills. So their taxes will go up dramatically whether they can afford to pay them or not, while the wealthy will still do be doing very well in or outside of America. Depending on whether they decide to stay in the country, or move to a country where the government doesn't believe they own most of what a person makes in their country.

So the costs that come with democratic socialism is just one problem. And of course Democratic Socialists point to Scandinavia and how successful it has been over there. Which would explain why social democracies like Sweden have now cut back on their welfare state. And expecting more from their own people in paying for their own cost of living. So even Socialists now see the limits to what big government can do for their people. 

And not only that, but when you talk about Scandinavia, you're talking about four unless you include Iceland, small countries with a good deal of land. At least with Norway, Sweden and Finland, that are all bigger than Iraq in size and about the size of Afghanistan. That have very small Nordic populations and are all not just energy independent, but produce and export a lot of their own energy. They can afford to be very socialist.

But the costs of democratic socialism are just one problem that I have with it. This idea that people shouldn't be expected to work and achieve success in life, because big government has now assumed the responsibility for everyone's personal welfare, seems anti-freedom and Un-American to me as a Liberal. 

Americans, want to live in freedom and be able to take care of themselves. They want the skills to be able to get a good job and make their own way in life and not be dependent on big government for their personal welfare. A lot of Americans are ashamed when they need to go on Unemployment Insurance and other public assistance to get by. And we tend not to want to be guaranteed a basic middle class income simply for being alive in America.

To have the strongest economy possible in America, the most Americans possible need to be able to achieve economic success. And that comes with risks like some people doing a lot better than others and some people falling down and needing help getting back up. But to have the most successful people in America as possible economic success needs to be encouraged. Not discouraged with high taxes and huge welfare benefits. 

You create economic freedom by encouraging economic development, quality education and making that universal, job training for low-income and low-skilled workers and a modern infrastructure system, so everyone can take advantage of what America has to offer. You don't do that through democratic socialism and encouraging people to live off of big government.

Anglophenia: Siobhan Thompson: 'How to Insult Like The British'

Source:Anglophenia - Siobhan Thompson: teaching Americans how to be British assholes? The last time I checked, Americans were already experts on being assholes. LOL 

Source:The Daily Review

"If you ever get into an argument with a British person, you'll wish you'd have watched this video. Siobhan Thompson gives you the tools to sling insults like a Brit.

Here are a few other insults via the Anglophenia blog:BBC America." 

From Anglophenia

I couldn't swear like a Brit to save my life or someone else's, being an American and everything. Being of German background and just outside of Washington in Maryland I have a hard time making my voice sound that snobby and Anglo-Saxon formal.

I tend to sound more like I'm from Pittsburgh, or Philadelphia, than Connecticut, or London. If I was told I wouldn't have to die if I could swear just once like a Brit, I would probably ask what's the least painful way you can kill me. But I know how to make fun of the Brits, especially the snobby English who look down at people who drive BMW's as being poor. Since we have so many English-Americans in America especially on the East Coast and in New England.

What can I say about Britain? I hate the food, the weather, the socialism, collectivism in general, their top-down big unitarian London knows best for everyone else in the United Kingdom kind of government.

But similar to Ireland, their women sound good and their people are very funny. Watching Prime Ministers Questions is probably as funny as watching Saturday Night Live. Of course SNL has been going downhill since the mid-1990s or so, but PMQ has been going uphill. If American politicians could insult like British politicians, maybe our politicians would be as popular as personal injury attorney's and door to door life insurance salesman. Because the Brits do it in a way where even the person on the other side has to laugh at them self.

Britain, similar to Florida except without the great weather, food, hot Latin women, is a great place to see and visit, but not somewhere I would want to live. But a place where you could have a great time as a foreign visitor and get around. (If you can remember the steering wheel is on the right side of vehicle, or I guess machine in Britain) And have a great time laughing even at yourself as an English person tells you how much you suck and makes you laugh in the process.

But Britain is one of those countries where I think I might try to learn how to swim three-thousand miles back to Washington if I couldn't catch a flight, or boat, perhaps a car that swims, after a few days. Because of the rain and preppy snobby attitude. 

Learn Liberty: Professor Howard Baetjer- 'Freedom of Speech: What is Your Opinion?'

Source:Learn Liberty- talking about free speech on college campuses.

Source:The Daily Review 

"Does free speech offend you? Do you believe that freedom of Speech gives you the freedom to speak your opinion? Learn more:Learn Liberty." 

From Learn Liberty

I believe college campus's perhaps especially in the Northeast, is the perfect place to ask people what they think about free speech. And perhaps requiring all college students to pass a course on free speech and the U.S. Constitution in order to graduate might also be a good idea. Because with what seems to be their lack of familiarity with both right now with 2-5 Millennial's now believing that free speech shouldn't protect people's rights to offend minorities and perhaps people in general.

We saw that in this video with one female student, but with another one saying he's against gun rights, but supports a person's freedom to offend. Which I thought was pretty interesting, because generally when someone is that far in one direction on one issue, they won't support freedom when it comes to another individual rights issue like speech. 

The only way you learn anything from anybody is for all of us to have that constitutional right to express ourselves. You learn what others think and what they know and don't know and they learn from you. You also learn things about yourself. Like where you do well and where you need to improve.

The only thing you get from fascism whether its Marxism on the Far-Left, or religious extremism on the Far-Right is what the central state approves of whether they're right or wrong. They'll only tell you what you what they want you to hear. 

Liberal democracy, liberal societies, liberal states, free societies, are not meant to be nice, or mean. They're meant to be free and meant to be real. You have the freedom over your own life and even what you say and what you think. But so does everyone else and we all have the right to tell others what we think about what they say. 

Adam Kokesh: Is Taxation Theft?

Source:Adam Kokesh-

Source:The New Democrat

People who believe taxation if theft, I would have to imagine at least don't believe in notion of government and society, at least the idea of a country. If you believe in having a government and a country then those things have to be funded. And who best to fund them than the people who receive those services. If taxation is theft, than so are dues that you pay at a club, or a union that you're a member of. Because those organizations take your money as well and you don't get to decide generally how much you're going to pay them. They do that for you.

Someone could say that people choose whether or not to join clubs, so they're choosing to pay those dues, because they've made a choice to join that club. But we also choose what country we live in. Or at least what country we want to live in and then the country decides for itself who should and shouldn't live there. If you think taxation is not theft, try finding a free developed country that doesn't have taxation. You might have the same luck finding a club that doesn't have dues. Someone has to pay the bills and again who more qualified than the people who receive the services of the club and government.

In the video several people correctly answered the question what is theft. Taking what doesn't belong to you without your permission. If taxation is then so is club dues. When you choose to live in a country or be a member of a club you're also choosing to follow the rules of the club and the country. Paying your bills are one of those rules. You don't like the rules of the club or country, well in free societies you can work to change the rules. Demand lower taxes and dues. Vote out people who you believe tax you too much. Vote in people you believe will cut or eliminate your taxes. But as long as you're a member of the club or country you play by the rules, or deal with the consequences.

American Thinker: Mark Musser- 'From Marxism/Communism to Post-Modern Leftist Fascism'

Source:The Daily Review- Karl Marx and another guy, LOL!

Source:The Daily Review 

"The USSR died an ugly death in the 1990s. Yet, such an ugly political collapse proved to be very opportunistic for many communist leaders throughout the Soviet Union who hated the Marxist ideology that actually placed some restrictions on their behavior. Many of them privatized state companies to themselves and thus became the biggest mafia the world has ever seen. Putin, as a former KGB spymaster, is now in relative control of this mafia in spite of all the clans competing with one another from the Ukrainian Crimea to the Russian Far East."

From the American Thinker 

"Images in this video sourced are royalty free, creative commons, public domain from Wiki images & Pixabay." 

Source:Fact Myth- how much time do you have?

From Computing Forever

Equating liberalism with communism and Marxism, is like equating Christian-Conservatism with libertarianism. Why, because Marxism and liberalism, are very different. Marxism, Fa-Left, liberalism at best Center-Left, (really only in America) Center-Right in most of the rest of the developed world. Libertarianism and Christian-Conservatism, very different, but both on the Right.

Better comparisons here would be to compare liberalism and libertarianism, because they are both about liberty and the individual. But go about in different ways. Liberals, want to use a limited government to help create a society where everyone can thrive. Through things like education and infrastructure. Libertarians, practically see any government as a form of big government.

Marxism and Christian-Conservatism, are both different. For one, Marxists don't believe in any religion and religion would either be illegal, or under strict controls in a Marxist State. But they're both fascist in the sense that they both believe in their views and values so much that they believe any opposition would just be dangerous for society and shouldn't be tolerated. To go against a Marxist or Christian Theocratic State, should be subjected to death. Not that different if at all from Saudi Arabia and Iran.

So if you're on the Right and lets with the Tea Party, or way over on the Right and believe America should all get into a national time machine and go back to 1915 or something and Modern America looks more alien to you than Latinos, or women not only voting, but working, if you're going to equate Marxists with Liberals, look out for yourself being compared with Theocrats and even Islamists. Who believe individualism is dangerous and freedom to assemble, protest, form oppositions, are immoral and everything else. That people being free to be themselves and live their own lives is as immoral as raping a kid or something. In a fascist's mind.

Marxists, are fascists who are so full of themselves who kiss the mirror every time they're in the bathroom. Who think anyone who disagrees with them should be shot or something. Liberals, believe in free speech. After all we created it, along with the U.S. Constitution. And we believe in liberty and individualism, which are the opposites of Marxists. Who believe they know best how everyone should live and think and that it is the job of government to take care of everyone for everyone. But Marxist superstate and a theocratic superstate, are very similar in the sense that they see individualism as dangerous. Which is why they both believe in big government so much.

The Washington Post: George Will: On American Campuses, Freedom From Speech

SourceThe Washington Post at Yale.

Source:The Daily Review

I believe getting on people for what Halloween costumes college students is the last straw at least for me when it comes to the whole free speech debate on campus and off campus as well. As far as how stupid this whole debate is. We now have a generation of Americans who don't know how to relax and take a joke. Not sure they can even deliver a joke as well. We have a generation of tight assess. I wasn't a fan of the Millennial Generation ten years ago. I saw them as superficial, technology, social media and celebrity news obsessed assholes. Who were experts on everything that is meaningless and unimportant, but had a hard time coming up with the name of their own U.S. Representative, or Senator, let alone whose the mayor of their hometown. And perhaps would struggle to name all fifty-states. Spotting them their own state wouldn't be enough help for them.

I still see as Millennial's as superficial tight asses. But it gets worst, because now they have some view that it is now their mission in life to deny all minorities from having to hear, read, or deal with anything that may offend them. Apparently being not so bright they haven't figured out that they still live in America and if they don't like free speech, perhaps going to college in Cuba, (if the Cubans would take them) would be a better place for them to go to school. Perhaps they would actually learn something down there. Or maybe they would just miss being able to make their own decisions and holding protests on campus without first getting approval not from the President of the school, but from the President of the Communist Republic. America is not safe zone for opposition and critical speech that may offend people who can't take a joke, or handle the truth.

College, is a place for learning, developing and experiencing. So you have some idea what life is like when you're in the real world and not everything is given to you and you have to work and earn everything that you get. Where not everyone is going to be nice to you and always tell you how great you are. That place is called America and in America, Americans have the right to be themselves and express themselves. Let people know what they think of them and be positive about people. As well as let people know when they come up short. In a liberal democracy we have the right to express ourselves about anything we want to. But with what comes with that is being accountable for what we say based on what other think about our views. But also what others about us as people and they might not always be nice. America is not a great place for oversensitive tight asses who can't take a joke, or criticism. And hopefully the Millennial Generation is still young enough to learn that.

Reason Magazine: Zach Weissmueller & Jim Epstein: Comedy, Outrage and College: What We Saw at The Can We Take a Joke?

Source:Reason Magazine- Gilbert Gottfried?

Source:The Daily Review

One of the comedians up there, I think it was the female comedian there said and I'm paraphrasing that people have to realize what humor and a jokes are. Unless you're a Socialist, or something humor and entertainment is exactly that. You're not trying to change the world simply with entertainment, but comment on in a humorous way what you see in the world. And a smart comedian will use their humor to also inform people about what is going on, because they follow the news. And in a lot of cases talking to people who know everything about Hollywood and whose sleeping with who and what shoes someone wore when they went out to lunch, but perhaps not even sure what the capital of the state is let alone the United States. So someone like that could actually learn a lot from a smart comedian, if they bother to listen can stay off their smartphone for more than five-minutes at a time.

With free speech, bloggers and comedians might as well sell life insurance door to door. Perhaps park cars, or get some other jobs that is not nearly as much fun as parking cars and selling insurance door to door. We shouldn't have to worry that if we say this and make fun of that, then this oversensitive group or that one, will be offended. Because their blood pressure is already as high as a skyscraper, because they don't smoke pot and simply don't know how to relax. We also shouldn't have to worry about if we make fun of this or that politician or that movement, that somehow we let whatever movement that has been just offended down, setting back fifty-years or whatever. That if we make jokes about labor unions, then people will have a harder time organizing. Or if we make fun of corporations, that will damage Wall Street, or whatever.

We have a very liberal First Amendment and constitutional right to free speech in America. Without it, again comedians and bloggers might as well go work for the state, or something and retire with their pensions after twenty-years or whatever. And because little things like free speech, Right to Privacy and property rights. And because of these great liberal individual rights Americans have a lot of individual freedom in America. Even the freedom to say and do things that others may not approve of. But the people who disagree with us can privately and publicly express their disagreement with us, as well as do and say things we don't approve of. That is called liberal democracy and freedom and with what comes with those great things is also responsibility. So yeah, we have the right even to be assholes, but people have the right to tell us how big of an asshole we really are. Or even think we're assholes when the only thing we're guilty of speaking the truth.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur Interviewing Larry King-Talking About Half-Libertarianism

Source:The Daily Review

What is a half-libertarian? Someone who is very liberal and I mean in the real non-communistic sense on social issues and believes in a lot of personal freedom short of hurting innocent people, but is very conservative on economic policy and national security? Low taxes, decentralized government, low regulations, strong defense, etc? Or go the other way and someone who is lets say a Progressive and perhaps even Socialist on economic policy and is what would be called a Religious or Neoconservative on social issues and is not a fan of personal freedom at least in an individualist sense.

I've argued this before, but it depends on what you mean by Conservative and Liberal. Because they aren't the only factions on the political spectrum. There Conservatives who believe in a good deal of personal freedom and are still very conservative on economic policy and national security. Barry Goldwater, back in the day, Rand Paul and many others today. And then there are Liberals who believe in a good deal of economic freedom and are very liberal on social issues. Jack Kennedy, back in the day, Dick Durbin, John Kerry and many others today. The non-stereotypical Liberal, doesn't want to tax most of your money away from you and tell you what you can say, what you can eat and what you can drink. And the non-stereotypical Conservative, doesn't want America to police the world and police Americans personal behavior and babysit us at home. But will keep your taxes and regulations down while they borrow from China, Russia and Saudi Arabia, to finance their big government.

A so-called half-libertarian, would be a Liberal or a Conservative, at least in the classical sense and I would argue at least in the real sense. That both sides believe in both economic and personal freedom. But we don't believe believe business's should be able to pollute the air at taxpayers expense. Or believe that all narcotics should be legal even for children, or that child pornography, should be legal, or even child prostitution should be legal. Liberals and Conservatives, both put limits on both economic and personal freedom even though both sides agree with a good deal of both. But again both sides believe in rule of law. Not to babysit adult Americans and make sure everyone washes their hands after they take a dump, or make sure they eat vegetables. But to regulate how we interact with each other. Which some people at least call themselves Libertarians view as big government.

Liberty Pen: President Clinton's 1993 Task Force on The Economy: Milton Friedman- Deficits & Government Spending

Source:Liberty Pen-Professor Milton Friedman.

Source:The New Democrat

Unless you're a very wealthy American, good luck finding someone who doesn't have at least some debt. Car payments are debt, mortgage's are debt, student loans are debt, business loans are debt, etc. It is not so much a question of whether a government, organization, or individual, carries debt, but how big of a debt do they carry relative to their income. Deficits, are one way you pick up debt. Simply by spending more money than you take in and for each year in a row you do that, the higher your debt is going to be. And depending on your ability and record of paying your debts, as well as the general health of the economy will determine how much interest you'll have to pay on you debts.

In the early 1990s, America had a recession of 1990-91, plus a high deficit and debt to GDP ratio. Meaning our budget deficit and national debt was high compared with our national economy. And as a result with weak economic growth and high unemployment to go on top of all of those issues, we had a pretty weak economy until 1994. President's George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, as well as two Democratic Congress's, addressed the debt and deficit in the early 1990s. Both in 1990 and 1993 and those two deficit reduction acts that had bod new revenue and budget cuts, as well as two major trade deals and the technology boom of the early and mid 1990s that we're really still in twenty-five years later, led to the 1990s economic boom. Where by 2000 we were actually talking about paying off the national debt. How times have changed.

In a perfect world where I've yet to visit or have seen, I would never want to run a deficit and debt unless the overall economy is weak. Generally speaking one of the last things you want to do is owe money to countries that don't have your best interest at heart and have those costs passed on to your taxpayers. But if you're economy is growing steady and your job growth is running steady and your deficit and debt ratios are relatively low, which means your interests rates will also be low and you'll have a strong currency as a result, you can run a small to moderate deficit. Just as long as you're managing your government spending properly and you keep deficit under control. And at the very least don't allow for it to grow faster than your economy.
Liberty Pen: President Clinton's 1993 Task Force on Deficits and Government Spending

John Cerkez: John Stossel- Censorship in the Name of Islam

Source: John Cerkez-

Source:The Daily Review

Just to the correct the record about something that Mark Steyn said. Islam is not the only religion in the world where their members have killed people in the name of their religion. The Ku Klux Klan and other Far-Right Anglo-Saxon Protestant terrorist groups in America, are responsible for a lot of murders as well. And just like with Christians, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are non-violent, even if they have Far-Right views about how women should be treated and everything else.

Again, as far critical speech of minorities in America religious, or otherwise and perhaps obese people will be added to this group of the specially protected in America with the Far-Left, as well as gays. Perhaps stupid people will be next, which could by itself destroy the comedy industry. Leaving thousands of comedians with no one to make fun of. Do we have a First Amendment and Freedom of Speech, or not? According to the U.S. Constitution we do and even if some government passes a law that bans critical speech, or even hate speech of minorities in their community, it won't stand up because of this little thing called the U.S. Constitution. Americans, don't have a right to be nice or mean or truthful or the right to lie. We have a guaranteed right to Free Speech, which covers all of those things.

Racial, ethic an religious discrimination, are all wrong and even illegal in most cases. But we all have the right to think and say whatever we want to about anyone else. If you don't believe in that, than I suggest liberal democracy is not the right form of government for you. And perhaps you move to Planet Paradise where its so peaceful that not even football and boxing are allowed. Where everyone loves each other and to paraphrase the great sitcom Cheers, where everyone knows your name and everything else. Liberal democracy, is about freedom for the individual. And sometimes what comes with freedom is people doing and saying things that oversensitive tight asses don't approve of. Doesn't mean the oversensitive tight ass has to agree with the language and activity that others are engage in, but government can't stop people simply because they don't like what they see and hear.
Source:John Cerkez

Reason: Matt Welch: 'Is Free Speech Under Attack in America?'

Source:Reason Magazine- yes, free speech is under attack in America.

Source:The Daily Review 

"At some point it is inherently ridiculous when you can't laugh at Neil Patrick Harris making jokes on the Academy Awards," says Matt Welch, Reason Editor in Chief. At Reason Weekend 2015, the annual donor event for the nonprofit that publishes this website, Welch discussed how today's society, full of trigger warnings and a sensitivity to opposing ideas, has lead to a watered down approach to the First Amendment. 

"It's not fun when you're walking around policing jokes all day long, it's not an attractive pose to people," continues Welch." 

From Reason Magazine

If there is one place in the world where you want people to be free to think for themselves and learn new things and hear new ideas and be able to learn and develop their own views on the issues, it would be college and I would add high school to that. 

For democracy, especially liberal democracy to mean anything people have to be free to speak and think for themselves. Instead of creating some collectivist board of so-called experts who are only experts in name only and perhaps in actuality only being experts on the nonsense that they believe in. Telling the peasants the people they rule over what speech is appropriate and what isn't. Rewarding people for speech that they agree with and punishing even through governmental force when people say things that offends the so-called experts.

We don't have a liberal democracy without Freedom of Speech. And Free Speech is exactly that. Not the right to be nice, or be mean , or be correct, or lie, but the right to speak freely. To express yourself and even say things that someone might view as offensive. Even if they have such a big foot stuck up their ass tight ass that they can't even handle criticism that is correct. 

Imagine if you were doctor, who wasn't allowed to give your patients bad news. So you end up telling your obese patients that they don't need to exercise and cut down on their 5-6 meals a day and not have to eat stuff other than fast food, because not all obese people suffer heart attacks and develop diabetes and all of the other diseases that are related to obesity. That doctor would end up being useless, because they wouldn't be able to treat any of their unhealthy patients, because they would never be allowed to give bad news. For fear of hurting their patients self-esteem.

That is what political correctness is. It is not only a form of fascism, leftist fascism when it comes from the Left and a form of Marxism. But it is an attempt to hide people from negative truths for fear of hurting and oversensitive person's self-esteem:

"We can't call Joe fat, because that might not only offend Joe, but fat people in general. And fat is used to put down fat people. And even though I'm Joe's doctor and I've seen men like him die from heart attacks and from diabetes, because they didn't even know what exercise was and didn't eat properly, I'm not going to tell Joe that he's overweight and too fat. Because I'm more interested in his self-esteem than his physical health."

That is what practicing medicine would become like if doctors weren't allowed to tell their patients the truth. And that is just one example of the dangers of political correctness in America. Free Speech, is not the right to not be offended, but to express yourself and hear what others have to say as well.

Sargon of Akkad: 'Neo-Progressive Activists'

Source:Sargon of Akkad- Hippie Neo-Communist?

Source:The Daily Review

"Neo-Progressivism is spread by a rather homogeneous group of activists, colloquially known as social justice warriors." 

From Sargon of Akkad 

I disagree with this guy (who will go nameless only, because he doesn't seem to have a name) even though his basic point is solid. But Neo-Progressive, I believe in an insult to actual Progressives. 

True progressivism is about progress and moving forward. Not making someone else's life worst, so someone else can live better. And when you try to shut someone else up so someone else is not offended, you might be improving the life of someone. Which is debatable, especially when they don't have to hear negative facts about them and don't have that opportunity and self-improve. But you're definitely regressing, because you now just infringed on someone else's Freedom of Speech rights. 

There's certainly nothing liberal about political correctness and I would argue progressive as well. Because it is a form of fascism which is regressive and hurts people simply for expressing themselves.

I prefer the term New Marxists to describe the New-Left in America. Karl Marx, is not older than dirt, he's actually older than the modern American Republic, but Marxism as an ideology is fairly new in America, as far as having a base that supports it. 

If you think Donald Trump is a big narcissist, well you're right, because he certainly is. But he's almost minor league compared with a Marxist who believes in their ideology so much that anyone who disagrees with them on anything must not only be wrong, but probably immoral as well and don't have a right to be heard. 

Fascism on the Left, is Marxism. If you think Marxist is insulting on the Left, don't try to shut people up for simply disagreeing with you, or contradicting you. When someone says something negative about anyone and it's true, they're not hating. They're simply pointing out negative truths about whoever they're talking about.

We now have a millennial generation of college students who are not only drowning in debt. but not getting much out of the education they can't afford, but who believe that people who say negative things about any minority group in the country even if they're correct, are bigots. But at least they have the latest smartphone and i-pad. So everything is awesome in their world. 

The lack of education for Millennial's is actually a real problem in America because we have a generation of this country who believe Freedom of Speech should either not exist, or doesn't exist. Because they either failed social studies in high school and got promoted to the next grade anyway, because their teacher didn't want to hurt their self-esteem. Or they were too busy texting the student who was sitting right next to them to learn about social studies and the U.S. Constitution and everything that is actually important. And this will be real problem if they ever come to power in America.

Learn Liberty: Professor Antony Davies- 'Who Favors More Freedom, Liberals or Conservatives?'

Source:Learn Liberty- Antony Davies talking about Liberals and Conservatives.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Prof. Antony Davies analyzes the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives.  He then proposes an alternative method of viewing political issues, which looks at policies and their respective impact on individual freedom.  Prof. Antony Davies concludes that the conventional liberal/conservative dichotomy encourages us to ignore first principles, and hence, overlook contradictory views." 

From Learn Liberty

With this piece I'm going to look at the real and classic definitions of liberalism and conservatism and not how they're both been stereotyped and even rewritten by the mainstream media. And people who self-describe themselves as Liberals and Conservatives, but who are actually much further to the left and right.

From Wikipedia-

"Liberalism, a political philosophy founded on the ideas of liberty and equality.

Liberty, having to do with things like personal choice and self-government. People govern themselves and allowed to make their own choices. Equality, the idea that everyone should be able to live in freedom and have the liberty over their own lives. Not that everyone should have the exact same amount of money and personal property. Liberalism, is not a collectivist ideology like socialism. Liberals believe that people are entitled to liberty. The word liberal comes from liberty. Sounds nothing like socialist, or collectivist, or socialize."

The Wikipedia definition of liberty-

"Free-will and determinism. Again having to do with individual freedom and self-governance and self-ownership, which I covered last week and the week before on this blog. Nothing in here about big centralized government, where a big state would collect most of the economic resources in the country so everyone is economically equal and taken care of. Liberalism, is not about the liberty for people not to take personal responsibility over their own lives and be taken care of by big government. The opposite is true, because liberalism is not socialism."

The Wikipedia definition of conservatism-

"A political philosophy based on conserving social institutions. Preserving tradition and a traditional way of doing things and a way of living. In other words conserving what already is and how things have always been done. Conservatism, is about moving slowly, but gradually. To take it one day at a time, so to speak and not be quick to react and to reform."

Now when it comes to conservatism, are you talking about conservatism in a cultural sense, a religious sense, or a political sense? You could even talk about conservatism in an athletic sense. Since this is about Liberal vs Conservative, I'm interested in conservatism in a political sense. 

When I hear the term Conservative Republican in America, I think of someone who is interested in conserving the republic. Our federal republic and federalist form of government. Conserving the U.S. Constitution, not trying to rewrite it or change it, certainly not dramatically, because they already approve of it. The whole notion of constitution amendments is anti-conservative, because constitutional amendment are reformist, which tend to go against conservative and even drastic attempts to get one's policy objectives through government.

Now based on the actual definitions of liberalism and conservatism, I would have to say that Liberals believe in more freedom. More personal choice and autonomy, because we're less interested in tradition and the status-quo and tend not to take the view that we shouldn't be able to do certain things individually, because they haven't been done before. 

The whole U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, are the most liberal documents ever written, because they are based on individual rights and liberty, self-governance and self-ownership. That people should be able to make their own personal choices and then live with consequences of those choices.

CUNY-TV: Day at Night- James Day Interviewing Hugh Hefner (1974)

Source:CUNY-TV- Playboy Hugh Hefner in 1974.

Source:The Daily Review

"Topics in Hugh Hefner's discussion of the American way of life include the influence of the Puritan work ethics on himself, his humble middle-class upbringing, the influence of money and sex on the American public, as well as Mr. Hefner's true definition of happiness." 

From CUNY-TV

Hugh Hefner, has made a business empire designed to make men happy and give them pleasure and perhaps women as well. But wanted to create an outlet and show millions of American men what we are already thinking and fantasizing about. Which is beautiful sexy women and being with them and feeling them and making them happy and having women that want us as men just as much. 

I think the thing that I respect most about Hef as a Liberal myself, is his individuality and personal honesty. This is who he is and puts it out there and lets the market decide who good his product is. He doesn't live off of tends and fads and public opinion, but instead goes off what he feels sells his products based on that and lets the market decide how good his material is.

Hugh Hefner, has made a great career for himself swimming against the tide with big tidal waves coming right at his face. And instead created his own empire that was about what he wanted it to be about which was sex and how American men felt and looked at it. And brought out into the open an issue that is very private for most Americans, which is sex. And how men felt about women and vice-versa and what we like about each other. 

Sexuality is an issue that is completely natural for most people (at least in private) and brought it out into the open for people to talk about and read about. And that his magazine has never been just about photos of sexy women, but dealing with the issues about how men and women feel about each other and using sex appeal to talk about these issues.

At risk of sound partisan here, (why not) Hugh Hefner represents everything that the Traditional Values Coalition and Christian-Right hate about America. Which is liberalism in its purist and realist form, which is individualism. And not swimming with the tide and simply following fads, but instead living your own life and making your own decisions and taking personal responsibility about your own decisions. And has made himself a great career and a very wealthy man. 

Hugh Hefner has lived his own life with the freedom to do so. Without having to worry about big government telling he can't do that and punishing him for it, or taxing him so much that he's no longer encouraged to be successful in America. And that is something else as a Liberal that I love about the man.