Reason: Nick Gillespie- Interviewing Kristin Tate: 'The Libertarian Chick on Government Gone Wild'

Source:Reason Magazine- the so-called Libertarian Chick: Kristin Tate.

Source:The New Democrat

"It sounds nice to say things like, 'Oh, I really want to help the poor and everyone deserves free college and health care'," says Kristin Tate, political columnist at The Libertarian Chick blog and author of the new book Government Gone Wild: How D.C. Politicians Are Taking You for a Ride—and What You Can Do About It. "But in reality, getting people hooked on the government and not giving them pathways to becoming self-sufficient is not compassionate." 

Tate sat down with Nick Gillespie to talk about her new book—which she has designed to be a libertarian manifesto for millennials—and why the 2016 election wants to make her "projectile vomit." "I don't really see any liberty-friendly candidates," Tate laments. 

She also stresses that libertarians need to "shine a spotlight" on the idea that getting people hooked on government programs is not a compassionate position and how focusing on individual liberty can create an uplifting message that will appeal to millennials and voters of all ages. " 

From Reason 

I know I'm going to over-generalize here and I'm not a Libertarian, but it's good to hear a Millennial who is not a Socialist . Who doesn't think speech they disagree with should be censored. Who doesn't believe there's a government program to solve everyone's problems for them. Who doesn't believe government services are free. Who doesn't believe government should protect people from themselves either from an economic or personal standpoint. 

Not saying all Millennial's are Socialists. (Not over-generalizing that much) but the Bernie Sanders movement are Millennial's and New-Left Socialists from the 1960s who still believe the Fidel Castro Marxist Revolution is still alive and well in Cuba. The 1-2% of the Jill Stein Green Party movement, is the same movement as the Bernie Sanders movement. The difference believing that Senator Sanders isn't as partisan as Dr. Stein and doesn't see Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as the same: "So what's the point of voting for either?"

Millennial's are a diverse population politically. You have a democratic socialist wing. 

You have what I at least would call a classically-liberal wing. People who are very liberal and anti-big government on social issues and believe in a lot of personal freedom as far as allowing people to make their own decisions. Who don't want big government taking care of them financially either, but don't want the safety net for people who truly need it to disappear. And that is the Gary Johnson base right there and he has Millennial support. He's says he's someone who believes in fiscal responsibility and social tolerance. 

And then you have the Ron Paul libertarian wing that Kristin Tate represents. People who have very little if any role for government at all. Who are way to the right of Gary Johnson on economic and fiscal policy. 

And then you have the non-political wing of the Millennial Generation. Who are too busy staking out Apple Stores so they're the first five people to buy the latest I-Phone. And are too busy with new technology and celebrity culture, to follow politics at all.

Millennial's aren't Socialists, they aren't Liberals, they aren't Centrists and they aren't Libertarians. This is a generation that's still finding their way politically. I mean the oldest Millennial right now is 36 years old. 

We didn't know how to label the Baby Boom Generation at least until the 1980s when they started entering their forties. They started off as part of the New-Left radical socialist movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Then they finally grew up, started taking showers, discovered barber shops, got their hair cut, got jobs, got married, had kids and moderated their political views at least to the point they were no longer bombing schools and banks, because they thought capitalism was unfair and racist. 

What I hope happens with the Millennial Generation is that they grow up as well as a generation and discover that part of living in a liberal democracy (and yes, liberal democracy) is from time to time hearing political viewpoints that they disagree with and even find insulting. 

Rob Atsea: NBC News Update With Jessica Savitch- Easter 1979

Source:Rob Atsea- NBC News Anchor Jesica Savitch.

Source:The New Democrat

"Jessica Savitch, was NBC Nightly News's weekend anchor in the late 1970s and early 1980s, before she tragically died in I believe 1983. Sh..."

Jessica Savitch, was NBC Nightly News's weekend anchor in the late 1970s and early 1980s, before she tragically died in I believe 1983. She was like 36 at that point and well on her way to becoming a lead network news anchor, or perhaps having another network news show. She had great presence, she knew what she was talking about, had great delivery and a great voice. And yes like Diane Sawyer, she was gorgeous and very cute and easy to look at and listen to.

Easter 1979, an important time. There was a Polish Pope in John Paul, who is a hero of the Christian-Right in America on social issues. But also a hero with Liberals and Conservatives when it comes to human rights. And was a major inspiration for the way falling in Eastern Europe with Slavic bloc there.

Iran was under a new regime and government and a huge energy producer that America relied on still at that point. But was becoming less predictable and stable just when America was going through an energy and economic crisis. Which just made 1979 an even more chaotic year with the bad economy and lack of affordable energy in the country.
Source:Rob Atsea

Remember This-C-SPAN's BookNotes With Brain Lamb- David Brinkley: 'From The New Deal to The Contract With America, From 1995'

Source:Remember This- Longtime NBC News & ABC News anchor David Brinkley.

Source:The New Democrat

“David McClure Brinkley (July 10, 1920 — June 11, 2003) was an American newscaster for NBC and ABC in a career lasting from 1943 to 1997.” 

From Remember This

You could say that David Brinkley saw it all in his life at least as a broadcast journalist and anchor. He had the first and big nightly national newscast the Huntley Brinkley Report, with Chet Huntley from NBC News. During that period there was the Korean War, the start of the Cold War, General Dwight Eisenhower as President of the United States, the early days of the civil rights movement, the civil rights movement in the 1960s, our first Irish-Catholic President of the United States in John F. Kennedy, the 1960s, the 1970s, Watergate, etc, all as either anchor of the Huntley Brinkley Report, or co-anchor of NBC Nightly News. David Brinkley, had a long and great career as either anchor of the NBC News nightly newscast, or as anchor of the ABC News Sunday morning news program This Week. He was the first stars of ABC News when they finally merged as a major player in the network news business in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

David Brinkley had an ability as a good interviewer and commentator. Like Howard Smith at ABC News, he was very good at delivering the news and analyzing it as well. Explaining what the news meant and the JFK assassination in how how he described how the country was feeling and how horrible that tragedy was in 1963, is a perfect example of that. His commentaries about Watergate in the early 1970s, is another example of that. He was very witty as well when he would get a silly story to cover and talk about on his show. He was almost like a great debate moderator on This Week between Conservative George Will and Progressive ABC News White House corespondent Sam Donaldson. The debates they had on that show made This Week worth watching by itself, along with the people they interviewed. And of course he had that great voice and gentlemen demeanor that made him perfect for news programs, because the people there didn't think he was trying to attack them.

The Huntley Brinkley Report, was a two-man nightly newscast with David Brinkley and Chet Huntley. CBS News had Walter Cronkite, who was simply the best at what he did and still is and anchored the CBS Evening News. NBC News had two excellent news anchors and men who worked very well together in Brinkley and Huntley and paired them together. Which worked for a while up until the late 60s or so when the CBS Evening News, became the top not just newscast, but perhaps news show in the country up until the 1980s. David Brinkley, arguably is the first of the great broadcast news anchors and someone who was at the top or near top for almost fifty-years at both NBC News and later ABC News. And is one of the best broadcast journalists we've ever produced, because of his ability to interview, deliver the news, add with when appropriate and could explain the news in a commonsense way that made him very popular. 

TJ Brown: Dear Regressives: Crackdown is Not an Effective Way to Deal With Dissent

Source:Foundation For Economic Freedom- Far-Left Fascism!

Source:The Daily Review

Remember back in elementary school when you would be confronted by someone you wish didn't even exist and didn't even want contact with and there aren't any school officials around and they got in your face and you didn't know how to deal with them effectively without looking like a bigger wimp or geek. Well, neither do I (for the most part) but I went to school with kids like that who would be called bullies today. So-called cool kids who felt the need to make the unpopular feel even worst than they already did. And some kids would sing that little song that I just quoted and even cover their ears. That's what Richard Dawkins and other on the Left, Center-Left call the regressive-left. Leftists who don't believe in liberal values like free speech, free choice, individualism, the ability for people to be able to think for themselves and live as people. And not as members of groups.

The regressive illiberal-left in America, that have more in common with Democratic Socialists and even Communists, far-left collectivists, who feel so superior over everyone else that they believe they and government should have the power to make up other people's minds for them. I mean what the hell are you doing in college if you don't want to hear opposing views and other points of view that are designed simply to make people think. Well maybe you're there just to play sports. But for the non-athlete at college what are they doing there if they don't want to hear what others think and debate the key issues of the day that they're going to have to deal with post-college. The way you deal with dissent or opposing views is to debate them and try to show people why they're wrong in a respectful way, or ignore them and move on with your life. But to simply try to use the heavy-hand of big government or whatever institution you're associated with, to shut up the opposition, is an obvious case of fascism.

College is all about free speech and freedom of protest. And when you say you are your political allies have the right to protest and free speech, but the opposition doesn't, you're believing in fascism. Whether you come from the Far-Left or Far-Right. You're saying you have so much confidence in yourself and what you believe, that there is not just any need of opposition, but the only thing that opposition would do is threaten your position that is so fabulous (on your Planet Pluto) and people who disagree with you are simply bigots anyway (according to the New-Left) and don't have any free speech rights anyway. And free speech doesn't exist in the first place anyway, (again in your small world) it's collective speech that should be the goal instead. What the collective or Board of Experts believe is the right way for people to speak to each other. That is not free speech, not individualism and not liberalism, but an illiberal form of political correctness. That shouldn't exist in a liberal democracy.

Reason Magazine: Why Republicans Should Vote Libertarian

Source:Reason Magazine- Wishful thinking!

Source:The New Democrat

Why should Republicans should vote Libertarian this election? Well why should Conservative Republicans and my mean Conservative-Libertarian Republicans vote Libertarian this election? Because the Republican nominee is a big government Republican. Who couldn't care less about the Constitution if it limits his power, who was once a Democrat and a Liberal Democrat on social issues, before we had an African-American president. And the Democratic nominee is a Progressive Democrat who would raise taxes on the wealthy and has big government leaning when it comes to national security and civil liberties as it relates to the War on Terror. The Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, will be on the ballot in all fifty-states. If the entire Never Tump in movement in the Republican Party goes to Gary Johnson and gets in the debates, voting against Donald Trump, doesn't necessarily mean Hillary Clinton is the next president. You could prevent both Hillary and The Donald, from winning the Electoral College and perhaps nominating Gary as president in the House of Representatives.

If you're a Republican who believes that there's too much power with the Federal Government and not enough power with the states and with individuals, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, is you're only choice. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, both believe in fiscal responsibility, low taxes and decentralization of government. They're also against big government all together and don't want to take big government out of the economy it put it in people's homes. So the Christian-Right, doesn't have much interest in voting for the Johnson-Weld ticket. Nor does big government national security Neoconservatives, or the Alt-Right, who represents the entire Far-Right in America. But the Republican Party at it's core is still a party that believes in economic freedom, fiscal responsibility and limited government. And even if you don't go with Liberals and Libertarians on social issues, that doesn't necessarily mean you want government to enforce your cultural values on the rest of the country. And force everyone else to live the same way.

The case against Donald Trump and for the Libertarian Party, is a case in favor of limited government . And against someone who believes he should have all the power and tells people he'll fix all of their problems for them, if he has no opposition and no one questions anything that he does. It's a case against big government and right-wing authoritarian fascism, against Vladimir Putin. And a case in favor of limited government and checks and balances. That the executive can't do everything on their own. That we have a Congress, judiciary and two-party system for good reasons. Because we can't afford to trust one person and generally one party to govern this huge diverse country by themselves. You don't have 17 presidential candidates and a divided Republican Party, no way Donald Trump becomes the GOP nominee for president. And perhaps The Donald runs as an Independent or starts a nationalist party or something. But he is there presidential nominee and Conservative-Libertarians have a better option for president.
Source:Reason

Economic Policy Journal: David Gordon- 'A Libertarian Argument for the Welfare State'

Source:The New Democrat- Pro -individual liberty. 

Source:The New Democrat

"The Niskanen Center in Washington, D.C, bills itself as a “libertarian think tank:” but its conception of libertarianism is one that many of us will find surprising. Jerry Taylor, the founder and president of the Center, in an article of March 10, “Do Libertarians Want Freedom or Not?” argues that libertarians ought to be sympathetic to welfare measures and legislation that restricts freedom of association to promote civil rights.

Why should libertarians support these policies? Taylor’s argument is a simple one: libertarians want to promote liberty and these policies will do so.  “If libertarianism is about advancing individual liberty, however, these aren’t acts of surrender. They are necessary prerequisites for a free society.”

How can Taylor say this? The welfare state seizes people’s property in order to “help” those whom the state wishes to subsidize, and laws that forbid racial discrimination in housing and employment likewise in obvious ways restrict liberty. No doubt there are arguments for these measures, but how can these arguments belibertarian ones? Surely these arguments would have to take the form that it is justifiable to restrict libertarian rights in order to help the poor or racial minorities."

From the Economic Policy Journal

Left-Libertarian, would be a solid way to describe my own politics I believe. I prefer Liberal or even Classical Liberal, Social Liberal even, but I'm someone whose all about individual freedom. But that it should be for everyone. That everyone should have the opportunity to achieve that and not have to live off any welfare state or private charity if just given the opportunity to live freely. 

Where government has a role is not as the director of society, but as a supporter and even referee. Not to call the plays and coach the teams, but to step in when predators break the rules that hurt the innocent. So that is where I guess Left-Libertarians, or Social-Liberals and Liberals, disagree with the Ron Paul Classical Libertarians lets say. Who just want government to stay home and perhaps arrest people when take from someone else's freedom. Or stop invaders when they invade the country.

The Left-Libertarian argument for the welfare state or what I prefer is the safety net, is that poverty is a real threat against freedom. And it keeps people down trapped away from freedom. So what you can do with a social insurance system is to help those people in the short-term and prevent them from having to deal with the worst forms of poverty like homelessness. As well as help them get on their feet and live in freedom and not off of taxpayers. 

A real safety net promotes freedom for everyone else, because you're creating new taxpayers and real consumers with real resources to consume the products that are made by the private market. Which creates good jobs for everyone involved. 

This is not an argument for a big centralized superstate where states and localities become almost non-relevant, or high taxes across the board. That discourages individual freedom and individualism. Just an insurance system for people who truly need it to help them achieve freedom as well. 

IM Forever One 88: Donald Trump's Most Idiotic Moments

Source:IM Forever-

Source:The Daily Review 

Donald Trump’s most idiotic moments. Tough thing to write down and to name, because that list grows larger everyday. Sort of like the belly of an obese man stuck at an all you can eat meat lovers buffet. The only thing that Donald Trump’s reality TV show for a presidential campaign has proven and that’s exactly what it is and is only serious in a technical sense, but the only thing he’s proven is that he isn’t qualified to be President of the United States. You don’t get to the Major Leagues by never ever playing any organize baseball. You at least start at high school if not sooner. Then you get drafted and start your professional career in the minors, or you play college baseball. Because there’s a large learning curve between the little leagues and Major Leagues.

The Donald is trying to learn about American politics and government and what it means to be President literally on the fly. Perhaps getting some information from whatever advisors he might have who are risking their professional reputations by being associated with his reality show/presidential campaign. When Fox News struggles to take a Republican presidential candidate especially the frontrunner seriously as a presidential candidate and doesn’t believe he’s qualified to be President, whether it’s Megyn Kelly, Bill O’Reilly or Chris Wallace, you know their might be a problem with the frontrunner. Fox News makes fun of The Donald. This is not just MSNBC and NPR. The national media loves the ratings they get from him, but don’t see him as President and that includes FNC.

All right you want my list (so far) of most idiotic statements that Donald Trump has made since he launched his latest reality show called “Who Wants Donald Trump For President?” (Every stupid voter dumb enough to buy used cars at the original price. Even if they’re missing a tire and door) Well I’m going to tell you anyway.

1. “Mexico is going to build the wall.” With no plan to accomplish that.

2. “Mexican immigrants are raping American women.” With no evidence.

3. “Muslims celebrated 9/11 in New York and New Jersey. Again no evidence. Even Governor Chris Christie, one of his hostages, I mean spokesmen contradicted him on that.

4. “Barack Obama doesn’t have a legitimate birth certificate.” He became President of the Birther States of America when he said that. Which is every state that doesn’t have a metro center.

5. Saying he would pay the legal bills of people who beat up protestors at his campaign rallies. You could probably get him on inciting violence on that one alone.

If the Donald Trump reality show/presidential campaign was just a bad Showtime or HBO movie or mini-series, I wouldn’t have any issue with it other than it being bad TV. But as a free American I could choose not to watch it. But this guy actually is running for president and not only that, but is likely the next presidential nominee for the second largest political party in America. That actually does have a rich history pre-Tea Party meltdown that they’re still suffering through. A man who doesn’t have any qualifications to have the most important job in the world, but likely to be on the ballot for president in all fifty states.
Source:IM Forever

Nick Gillespie: Authoritarians vs. Libertarians Is the Real Fight On The Right

Source:The Daily Beast- John Belushi vs Big Brother?

Source:The New Democrat

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

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

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

Liberty Pen: The Fountainhead- Ayn Rand on Individualism

Source:Liberty Pen- Objectivist Ayn Rand.

Source:The Daily Review

I agree with Ayn Rand's point about without individualism and individual initiative people wouldn't have the resources to help others, because no one would be creating, producing and taking care of themselves. And for this reason, every successful country has at least a certain amount of greed and individualism. We don't tend to be a country or world of angels and tend to be motivated to do the right thing. And sometimes that means taking care of yourself. And a collectivist could say that the people who aren't able to take care of themselves the community will step in and take care of them. Fine, but if there at least isn't a large population of people who are individually successful and taking care of themselves like paying their bills, putting money away and enjoying life, there won't be the resources to help the people who aren't doing those things.

There's a reason why we're all born as individuals and all separate people. Instead of being joined with others at the hip and other places on the body, legs, arms, etc. Because we're different people and our own person. At least that is how we start out in life. Some of us decide that we don't want to be ourselves and perhaps don't like ourselves that much and instead feel the need to be like other people that we respect more than ourselves. But we all start off in life with our own brains and the ability to think and learn and then use that knowledge to examine it and make our own decisions. These are great things to have. Diversity is a great thing whatever the situation or thing is. Whether is is race, ethnicity, religion and yes even politics. All democracies are very diverse when it comes to their politics.

Without individualism people become clones and cult followers of whoever the latest so-called celebrity is, even if that celebrity is in jail. Or some cases become cult followers of politicians they think are like totally awesome at the time or whatever. Ron Paul from 2011-12 comes to mind real fast. Barack Obama would be another from 2007-09. Where people would digest everything those men would say and do as if they became that person themselves. I unfortunately have personal experience with Ron Paul cult followers on Facebook. Where I would post something there and somebody could comment on it and in many cases using a screen name like Ronny Paul or some other name that sounds like Dr. Paul's, with one of Dr. Paul's quotes. Even if the quote has nothing to do with my post. That is not what we want to be as a country a liberal democracy that should always be the freest country in the world.

A certain cult following like that unfortunately seems to be developing for Donald Trump. One of the last people in the world who should have a cult following based on his own personal life. That is not healthy for a country that professes individual freedom, individual initiative, creativity, etc. We need a country of individuals who can think and learn for themselves and then apply that knowledge to become creative productive people as well. Who can bring people to themselves not as cult followers, but teach others how to be creative productive individuals as well. Who don't take everything that someone says even their American idol at face value, because they can think and reason for them self. And know when their heros are right and even wrong. Who can take the best available information and facts and imply them to make the best decisions for themselves. You can only have all the progressive social welfare programs that you can pay for. The people who pay for them are the individuals and creators who make those programs possible.
Source:Liberty Pen

Liberty Pen: George Stephanopoulos- Donald Trump On Government-Run Health Insurance

Source:Liberty Pen-

Source:The New Democrat

What's Donald Trump's position on health care and health insurance? Well to sound like Mitt Romney, it depends on which Donald you ask. In 2004 Donald Trump during that presidential election was asked about health care reform and said he liked the single payer government-run health insurance option, or at least was open to it. Lately he's expressed openness to the individual mandate when it comes to health insurance which is already in the 2010 Affordable Care Act. The individual mandate was actually offered by the Neoconservative Heritage Foundation in 1993. And was part of the Senate Republican alternative to the Clinton Administration's health care reform plan in 1993-94. Now he's saying that he would repeal the ACA, but would have some insurance plan for people who simply can't afford health insurance, but hasn't laid out yet what that would be.

This is just one big problem that two-thirds of Republican voters and a lot of the rest of the country have with Donald Trump for president right now. Who is this guy and what does he believe? The campaign he's running now looks more like Pat Buchanan for president in 1996 and 2000 than it looks like a Tea Party presidential campaign. Which is his current base right now. At least with the Neoconservative/Christian-Right wing of it. The Conservative-Libertarians, are going for Senator Ted Cruz. And Donald Trump supporters seem to have no interest in the man's actual record and apparently could care less about it even if they read it. Because if they looked at it they would see this guy has nothing in common with them and had been on the opposite side of most of their issues for most of his life. But now he apparently wants to be president and is speaking a different tune.

Donald Trump is nothing more than a used car salesman and a damn good wealthy one who owns his own chain of used car lots. Who has a supposed answer and solution to everyone's concerns and issues. And tell everyone he has a deal for them without being able or willing to put any details on the table. Because he doesn't want to or can't, because he's afraid to be seen as the fraud that he is. And nothing more than a big mouth who every time he opens it shows how lacking in knowledge and judgment and even demeanor he is when speaking about the problems and issues that he promises he'll solve. I think we saw some evidence about the Republican Party finally waking up to these facts this last weekend and we'll see what Tuesday night if more Republicans are waking up to that as well. Or does the Donald Trump Reality Show For President continue to roll on.

Lynda Carter: 'Life is a Roller Coaster'- Enjoy The Ride

Source:Word Porn Quote- Truer words have never been said about life. Life is only what you make out it for yourself and people you care about. 

SourceThe Daily Review

"I couldn't help it. I needed to do a lyrics video for this song. I hoe you like it, and just like always before, I do not own this."

Source:Mary Alice Whitlock-  " Ronan Keating- Life is a Roller Coaster Lyrics"

From Mary Alice Whitlock

It is probably a good thing that we do have roller coasters in America, because they are a great way to describe American life. And of course so are sports analogies and even political campaigns. Life is all about ups and downs. Without our ups, life could be pretty depressing. Even prison inmates have good days in prison, the ones who use their time wisely anyway and avoid solitary confinement.

And of course we all have our downs, but without those downs it would be hard to improve ourselves. Because we would always think everything and perhaps ourselves especially is perfect. And always one Wall Street crash away from coming down to Earth. Because of how overconfident we are about ourselves as individuals. Which would always be a great recipe for narcissism.

I guess my main advice for everyone everyday is to learn something new everyday. Especially about yourself and learn something that is somewhat negative about yourself so you always have room and opportunity to improve. Always learn something that is positive about yourself as well, if you can. So you can be as happy about yourself while always keeping it real (to use a cliche) about who you really are.

Never think you struck gold about something and now you're invincible. Because every time you get to the top of the mountain know that the only way to go from there is down. And the question then is how far and how fast. Always know that there is a positive thing about being in the valley. Because the only way to go from there is up. And you always have that opportunity of self-improvement.

Life is a roller coaster, because we all make mistakes all the time. There's always something that we could have done or said to make something better than it turned out. Or perhaps there was something we should have said or known, but didn't because we didn't have enough knowledge at the time. Because we simply weren't as smart as we should have been. But again with mistakes come opportunities if played right at self-improvement. 'This is what I did wrong. This is what I should have done instead. Now that I know better I won't make that mistake again, because I've learned from it."

The smart people aren't perfect. The smart people are the people who know themselves the best. And because of that make their share of mistakes, but don't make the same mistakes twice. Because they learn from their mistakes. Smart people are always learning And that is what I call the roller coaster of life. Ups and downs and the smart people are the people who have the most ups, because they always learn  from their mistakes and don't make the same mistakes again.

Liberty Pen: John Stossel Interviewing U.S. Senator Rand Paul: 'Liberty vs Security'

Source:Liberty Pen- no security without liberty and vice-versa.

Source:The New Democrat

"Rand Paul joins John to discuss liberty vs security issues with ISIS and the Syrian refugees. Liberty Pen" 

From Liberty Pen

One of my favorite Milton Friedman quotes is, "without liberty there is no security." As well as without security there is no liberty, because then there would just be chaos. But I hate this neoconservative argument that somehow individual freedom and privacy threatens security, because somehow it gives people freedom to threaten the state and the security of the people. 

You need a limited government and national security state protecting the people from predators foreign and domestic. But you do that by targeting criminals and terrorists. Not treating everyone as terrorists and eliminating the guaranteed Right to Privacy in America and suggesting that everyone is a potential suspect until proven otherwise. Even in this so-called War on Terror that Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution is still there and still relevant.

There's no such thing as individual freedom and limited government in a national police state. Whether it is in the Middle East or Russia or North Korea or what Christian-Nationalists want in America. But with limited government even the national security state in that government is held accountable and is limited under the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights as far as how it can regulate society and what it can do and for the people. 

You eliminate the Fourth Amendment and the Bill of Rights and you not only eliminate limited government in what's supposed to be a liberal democracy, but you eliminate individual freedom. Especially personal freedom and the Right to Privacy. 

So when Congress and the President pushes anti-terrorism laws, they still have to comply with the U.S. Constitution, or they're simply unconstitutional and should be thrown out.

The Blaze: Mary Ramirez: 'I’m Done Apologizing For Being White, And You Should Be Too'

Source: The Blaze-

Source:The Daily Review

I feel an accusation that I'm a racist coming in the near future, because I don't see all Caucasians as racists and bigots in general, or that we have some monopoly on racism and bigotry in general in this country. But we'll wait and see.

Just to give some of my own views about race in America and as it's called. It was African-American freedom fighter Rosa Parks who had the courage and was right to stand up for her own rights not as an African-American, but simply as an American citizen in refusing to give up her bus seat to a Caucasian-American, who said 'that the only race is the human race.' Dr. Martin Luther King and his I Have a Dream speech, 'I have a dream that one day my children will grow up and not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.' I'm paraphrasing, but that is very close. The only thing I would add to that dream is that all children in America grow up and see that dream as the new reality or the new normal. In a society like that no one is judging people by race, but by character.

When I say I don't see race, I mean I don't judge people by race. Anyone can see the racial differences between Europeans, African-Asians, North Americans and everyone else. That is not the question. The question is do we judge people by the race and ethnicity that we see, or by the individual and their character and how they present themselves in life as an individual. And not just that, but I also don't identify by race and certainly not by color. Not all African-Americans have black skin. Not all Caucasians have white skin and if you look at the color of white in reality like a white t-shirt, no one has that complexion anyway. Asians whether their ancestors come from Central Asia, South Asia, or the Far-East, obviously don't have yellow skin.

So if we're going to have a conversation about race in America are we going to talk about race, or is this about color? Two different things. And to say that some people have white blood, some people have black blood and some people have brown blood. the only blood I've ever seen is red. So that's not a way to talk about race either. Barack Obama doesn't have black or white blood, but only red blood. He's not black or white, but brown. He's got Irish and American-Indian ancestry on his mother's side and Kenyan blood on his father's side. He's both an African and European-American, as well as an American-Indian. He celebrates St. Patrick's Day, because he's Irish on his mother's side. So are we talking about race, or color, or both? And when it comes to mix-race people, well they might not have one color in their complexion, but a combination of colors. Depending on the person.

When it comes to apologizing about being Caucasian or anything else, why should anyone do that? Should everyone speak out against bigots in their racial and ethnic communities when they make ignorant statements about other ethnicities and races? Of course they should if they know what that person said is bigoted. But this idea that anyone should apologize for being how they were born regardless of how they were born, their complexion, how their hair looks and how their face is shaped, etc, of course not. Why should individuals apologize for how they were born. It is one thing to denounce your own bigotry and say you were wrong about that and are now sorry for it.  But it's another to apologize for how you were born. Which is something that none of us can obviously control. We aren't born bigots. That is something that people have to learn and then accept.
Source:Ilya Gokaadze

Young Americans For Liberty: George Carlin- On Individualism

Source:Young Americans For Liberty- comedian George Carlin.

Source:The Daily Review 

"George Carlin — American Comedian born on May 12, 1937, died on June 22, 2008

George Denis Patrick Carlin was an American stand-up comedian, social critic, actor, and author. Carlin was noted for his black comedy and his thoughts on politics, the English language, psychology, religion, and various taboo subjects. Carlin and his "Seven dirty words" comedy routine were central to the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, in which a 54 decision affirmed the government's power to regulate indecent material on the public airwaves... 

From Quotes Gram 

"George Carlin describes his process of organizing his life experiences into his comedy routines.

ABOUT THE PALEY CENTER:

In an era of rapid change in media and technology, the not-for-profit Paley Center for Media explores the evolving ways in which we create, consume, and connect through media. With locations in New York and Los Angeles, and the foremost public archive of television and radio programming, the Paley Center produces and curates programs, forums, and educational activities that engage the general public, industry professionals, and the creative community in an ongoing conversation about the impact of media on our lives. The Paley Center for Media is a hub of innovation and connection for entrepreneurs, investors, and consumers with its finger on the pulse of the next big thing in media go to the Paley Center to learn more." 

Source:Paley Center- comedian George Carlin in 2008.

From the Paley Center

George Carlin, I believe was the most individualists of individualists. Perhaps not the father of individualism, but perhaps the president of it. A man who didn't play team sports, because always wanted to be himself. Imagine if we had a culture of individualists instead of a culture of faddists. Who believe there worthless or something if they don't have the latest i-phone or i-pad, or whatever the current thing is that people have to have, or you might see them inline to jump off a bridge. Because their current device is a week old instead of just buying it brand new today. George Carlin and myself, aren't against technology. I don't think he's as popular as he's today without it and I'm not doing what I'm doing without it. But he was against cloning and faddism.

People are exactly that. We all at start out in life as ourselves and what we do with that is up to us. A faddist and unfortunately I know plenty of them goes with the current trend. Whatever is considered cool or awesome. They vote for politicians, because that person is cool, or shares the same phone and watches the same programs as they do. Individualists vote for people based on who they think would be the best person for the office that they're voting on. Individuals make individual decisions. What's best for them and what they believe and what they want to do. They don't camp out at stores so they're one of the five people to have the latest whatever as soon as it goes on sale. They buy a new phone or whatever the thing is when they need one. And buy what is best for them.

If you noticed George Carlin was an individualist comedian as well. He was well-read and well-informed on the news and talked and made fun of things and people based on what he thought was important and what interest him. Not about whatever the popular subject was at the time. And was so good at what he did that he brought people to him and actually got him to think. He might be the only comedian who could get Millennial's who are interested in current affairs to put their i-phone down for more than five-minutes. Scratch that, maybe he could only do it for a minute, but in today's society that would still be impressive. Because Carlin could get people to think about things they've never thought about before and think about things they have thought about, but look at them differently. Like when it comes to politicians and blaming the voters who voted for them. And is someone who can't be replaced and is still missed.

Young Americans For Liberty: Thomas Sowell- On Freedom of Choice

Source:Young Americans For Liberty- Conservative columnist Thomas Sowell talking about how Big Government destroys freedom of choice.

Source:The New Democrat 

Freedom of Choice and personal and economic freedom in general is just that. The freedom to decide what is best for yourself. Not what is best for others. Not the freedom to hurt people other than in self-defense, but the freedom for one to make their own decisions and have the personal responsibility to live with the consequences of their decisions. To consume alcohol or not, to smoke tobacco or not, to even use marijuana or not, to marry or not and the same things for gays. The freedom to gamble one's own money or not. The freedom to watch an adult film or not. The freedom to read adult material and listen to graphic music and watch graphic entertainment or not. Not the freedom to make these decisions for others, because you approve of them. Ot to deny others from making these decisions for themselves, because you don't approve of them.

If there is a free market and of course there isn't and I've argued this a lot in the past, but if there were a free market it would be an individual market based on choice. Where we can all make these decisions for ourselves and then be held responsible for the decisions that we make. A free market of individuals, not a market of business's that would go unregulated and untaxed with the freedom over our own lives as far as what we consume, because even if there are a lot of different products, there would be very few competitors, because of all the unregulated monopolization in the market. But a true individual market where all free adults make these decisions themselves with a wide-range of different business's and competitors, because monopoly is truly illegal. With an educated public that has all the information that they need to make their own decisions.

Freedom of Choice is always something that I believe in as a Liberal. Because that along with Freedom of Speech and equality opportunity and equal rights and justice for all, is really what liberalism is about. I don't want to force people to make the same decisions that I did. Or be held responsible for the decisions that I made. I just want the freedom to make my own decisions and given the responsibility to personally live up to the consequences of my decisions. Not eliminate government and get it out-of-the-way all together. We still need a regulator to regulate how people interact with each other and to punish when the innocent are harmed. But let people make their own personal decisions short of hurting innocent people and hold them personally responsible for their own decisions.

The American Thinker: Don Feder: 'All Aboard Starship Bernie Sanders!'

Source:The Daily Review- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) The President of Free Stuff From Government. LOL

Source:The Daily Review 

"The chattering class is amazed at the rise of avowed socialist Bernard Sanders, running against hyper-welfarist Hillary Clinton. But Sanders’s campaign is just the latest chapter in the Democratic Party’s leftward lurch -- from Woodrow Wilson to Barack Obama.

When MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asked DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to explain the differences between a Democrat and a socialist, she changed the subject. Hillary Clinton snapped “I’m not going to get into it. You’d have to ask him [Sanders]” -- or you can check her e-mails. In a 2010 Gallup Poll, 53% of Democrats said they had a positive impression of socialism." 

From The American Thinker

Perhaps the first time ever I read a post on The American Thinker where it looked like there was some real thinking involved in the writer's piece. 

Anytime a Socialist politician running for high office and in this case not the highest office in the country, but the highest office in the world (in President of the United States) anytime that politician promises free stuff from government, ask that person how much is this free stuff going to cost you. Anyone who pays taxes in America pays for the government they receive. And in some cases we pay for the government we don't receive. If you're fortunate to never be unemployed in America, you'll never receive the Unemployment Insurance that you pay for. And that is just one example.

The weakness that Socialists in America have and why they've never caught on for the most part at least in high office, is because they're so big centralized government-centric. And again everything that government does it has to charge it's taxpayers for the cost. Or borrow the money from another country which we pay in interest relates. 

The old cliche "money doesn't grow on trees" should have been the first thing that anyone ever read when studying either economics, government, or political philosophy, especially socialism. I guess today's Millennial's who are at least technically studying economics were too busy camping out at the Apple Store the night before so they could say they were one of the first five people to buy the latest i-phone and be able to post that on Facebook and over slept that night and missed the money doesn't grow on trees economic lesson.

Millennial's, especially need to at least try to understand this. Spend one day not hyped up on Red Bull, coffee, or alcohol and focus during one government and economics lesson. Because they need to know that all of the promises that Socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, now what seventeen-trillion-dollars in counting, or is it thirty-trillion-dollars, hell lets make it hundred-trillion-dollars (I have a hard time keeping up with Socialists when it comes to taxes and government) hey need to know that if for some reason Bernie were to ever become President of the United States (which might only happen if all of Hillary Clinton's voters are kidnapped, or deported by Donald Trump) that everything that Bernie is promising will come with a huge cost in taxes. Nothing free about government.

CATO Institute: Sheldon Richman- Dissolving the Inkblot: Privacy as Property Right

Source:CATO Institute.

Source:The New Democrat

I love the U.S. Constitution for what it is, because I see it as the one document that protects all of our individual freedom in America, both personal and economic. As all Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians should. And I would never remove or amend any of our amendments in it, or the Bill of Rights.  But if there were two things that I would add to it, it would be two new additional constitutional rights. The Right to a Quality Education, so no one is trapped in a bad school simply because they come from low-income parents, or a low-single single-parent. And what this is really about and maybe I would amend the Fourth Amendment to include this, or just create a new amendment, but I would add a guaranteed right to Freedom of Choice.

Where I agree with Libertarian Economist Walter Williams is that property rights extends to one's self. Their own body and because that we're all responsible for our own personal decisions. Even when people make bad decisions for us, it is us that have to live with them and in a sense we become responsible for someone else's bad decisions. I actually have personal experience with this. And given that and given we live in a liberal democracy and free society we should be responsible for one's self, as well as our kids until they come of age. But we and government shouldn't be responsible for making the decisions for other free adults in their own personal lives. So instead of someone telling us, no you can't do that when it comes to our own personal decisions, we should make those decisions ourselves. Just as long as we aren't hurting innocent person's or people.

The Freedom of Choice, is not the freedom to hurt innocent people. It is the freedom for one to make their own decisions and as long as they aren't hurting innocent people and then held personally responsible for their own bad decisions for good and bad. And that is where self-ownership and self-government comes in. The right for people to self-govern themselves and make their own decisions. Not someone's else's decisions. Like whether to live healthy or not, whether to live or not, whether to gamble or not, whether to smoke marijuana or not, whether to either pay for sex, or sell themselves for sex or not. And I could go on, but hopefully you have other things you would like to do in your lifetime than to read this indefinite list.  But the freedom for people to make their own personal and economic decisions. And then be held personally responsible for them.

Freedom of Choice, is yes the freedom to decide, but just because someone has that freedom doesn't necessarily mean they'll do that. It just means they have the personal freedom to make their own decisions. To drink alcohol, or not, to smoke marijuana, or not, to have a homosexual relationship and marriage, or not and again I could go, but I trust you have lives. It says that as intelligent and educated as a group of individuals in government might be, that generally they're and others are better off if they make their own decisions instead of making the personal decisions of others. And then set the rules for how people should interact with each other. But not decide for everyone else just because they may think someone is bad or dangerous and can even make a good case for that, that no one else should be able to make those decisions for themselves.

Big Think: John Cleese- Political Correctness Can Lead to an Orwellian Nightmare

Source:Big Think-British comedian John Cleese.

Source:The Daily Review

If you're familiar with the book Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell plots a situation where a country is run by a special elite, or Board of Experts. That would decide what is best and appropriate for everyone else in the country. Including the most private and personal of activities like how we think and what we say. Well if you're familiar with the political correctness movement you know that is what the people in this movement want to do when it comes to thought and speech in this country. And would like to decide what is appropriate for everyone else when it comes to how we think and speak in this country.

Anyone familiar with comedy knows that it is about as non-partisan an institution as you'll ever see. It doesn't target groups, but people who do and say funny things and things that could be embarrassing for them. Stupid things and activities that famous people could be involved in. Comedy generally speaking is not about race. Except for comedians who make it about race and take the idea that making fun of Caucasians or minorities, is perfectly acceptable, but when you make fun of the other you're a bigot. My other issue with political correctness and why I can't take it seriously and don't bother to struggle to do so is the hypocrisy of it. Making fun of Caucasians, especially Anglo-Saxon Southern Protestants, perfectly okay. But if you make a hip-hop joke you're a bigot in their view.

Free speech and comedy go together like chocolate cake and vanilla ice cream. Perfectly, but free speech and fascism/political correctness, are like hot dogs with peanut butter. Mustard with apple pie. I fate fascism and like mustard, but not with apple pie. Salesman need to go where the customers are and comedians need to go where the jokes are. You can't restrict a salesman when they pick customers, because it might offend other customers. And you can't restrict comedians, because one group or groups of people can't handle legitimate criticism, or having their short-comings made fun of. If you want to have a successful business and a comedy industry that thrives and makes people with sense of humors laugh.

For the oversensitive Americans amongst us regardless of race or ethnicity, comedy is probably not for you. And you should stick with your coffee houses and French poetry readings and reality TV. And when you want comedy listen to some Far-Left comedian bashing rich people especially rich Caucasian men and claiming how much they're destroying the country. And leave comedy in general for people who like to laugh and don't give a damn about who is getting made fun of as long as the jokes are funny and in good taste. Making fun of someone's real short-comings  and especially doing it in a critical informative way, is not bigoted. But informative and a way of educating people.

To suggest one group of Americans or groups of Americans, are off limits when it comes to comedy, even though we live in a liberal democracy and liberal democratic republic, with a liberal guarantee of free speech, is to suggest one group of Americans, or group of Americans are somehow perfect in an imperfect world. But not only that, it also suggest that you might live in the wrong country. That liberal democracy is too hard for you and you need to live a place where people tell you what to think and what to say. Because you can't think for yourself and don't believe anyone else can either. Perhaps the country in Nineteen Eighty-Four, would be a good country for you. And leave America for people who love individual freedom including free speech and are smart enough to handle it.

Libertarian Party: Gary Johnson- The Only Presidential Choice For Liberty Still Standing

Source:Liberty Party-

Source:The New Democrat

If we're looking at a Donald Trump-Bernie Sanders presidential election in 2016, you'll see Mike Bloomberg run for president (The Nanny Statist in-Chief Running For Commander-In-Chief) and the Gary Johnson campaign will just become that more important.

With the two big government candidates trying to out big government the other. The Donald, waking up little Latino kids in the middle of the night to kick them out of the country, because they're parents are here illegally, or brought them here illegally. As well as throwing out Freedom of Religion for Muslims and nationalizing Mosques. Feel The Bern, is really feeling Uncle Sam with his hands stuck in the pockets and taking from your wallets from you. Because Uncle Sam is addicted to other people's money and wants to tax every dollar possible from everyone. Because he knows best how to spend everyone's money better for them. According to every Socialist's favorite uncle and other American's worst nightmare in Uncle Sam. That Bernie Sanders thinks is simply not powerful enough and doesn't have enough of other people's money.

Assuming The Donald and The Bern are the top two major presidential candidates and I think they're still a long shot at this point, but for the fun of it lets say they are, Gary Johnson who is what I at least would describe as a Left-Libertarian, or Classical Liberal, running against a Democratic Socialist in Bernie and a reality TV actor in Donald Trump running as a Fascist Neoconservative, you have to have someone in there to say, no! Big government from the Far-Left, or Far-Right, is never the solution. And you need someone who will return power to the people from an economic and personal standpoint. And send power to the states as well. While Washington gets its fiscal house in order and gets the economy going again. That is what a Gary Johnson for president will represent. Especially running against a Fascist and Socialist.

See Progress: The History of Progressivism

Source:Progressive Party-

Source:The New Democrat

In this piece I'm going to layout what progressivism is and what it isn't and also why I believe Hillary Clinton is the Progressive Democrat running for president and why Bernie Sanders is the Democratic Socialist, whose running for president as a Democrat as well. When you think of Progressive, you should think progress and someone who believes in progress. Moving the ball forward, making things better and yes using government and giving government a role in creating that progress.

But not the only role and you're not taxing people so high that they no longer have to take responsibility over their own lives. Like when it comes to health care, health insurance, education, childcare, pension, housing, whether to join a union or not, or personal freedom choices. Like what to eat and drink, how to spend your money, how we communicate to people and what we say in public. Progressives, helped write the U.S. Constitution and created the American Federal Republic. They didn't oppose it. The Progressive Era of the early 20th Century was about creating a public safety net for the United States, to go along with everything that we already had as a country. Not to completely remake America into some social democracy, or some socialist state.

Socialists, meaning Democratic Socialists and Progressives aren't the same people with two different labels. Lyndon Johnson and Bernie Sanders, aren't the same political animals. Senator Sanders, is much further left than President Johnson ever was. Especially on economic policy, but national security as well. Not to say that Senator Sanders doesn't believe in national defense and wouldn't defend the homeland, but President Johnson was a strong anti-Communist and Cold Warrior. And would never call for the deep budget cuts in defense that Bernie favors. Progressives, created the National Security State. Progressives, created the tools like the United Nations, NATO, Department of Defense, CIA and other agencies, that helped win the Cold War. Socialists, have opposed these things from the start.

The political core of a Progressive is someone who believes that everyone in society should have a quality opportunity to succeed as best as they can. That economic success and freedom shouldn't be tied to the income level of one's parents, but to the individual's work, education and what they're able to create for themselves based on what they invest in society themselves. So Progressives, believe in public education, public infrastructure, a public safety net for people who truly need it. Freedom to Assembly, Right to Organize and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights as a whole. But Socialists would go much further than that and want a society where the individual isn't so responsible for their own lives. And where the central government assumes a lot of that responsibility. So no one has too much, or too little, in their view.

Again Progressives, aren't Democratic Socialists and Progressives believe in things like personal responsibility and a strong national defense. That America can't police the world by ourselves, but that we have to play our part. Socialists, tend to be more isolationist and dovish, soft on defense would be a way of putting that. Scandinavia and Canada, are good examples of that. Whereas America, Germany, France, tend to believe in internationalism and working with their allies and even using military force when they believe it can make a positive difference. France, is a big part of the coalition against ISIS right now in Syria and bombing ISIS right now and Germany is also part of that coalition. So the Progressive, doesn't blame society when people do horrible things. They hold person who committed the horrible acts responsible. The Socialist, might say that society is to blame here and give the criminal a pass.

The reason why Hillary Clinton is the Progressive running for president, because she believes in both progress. But also governing and when it comes to our government with checks and balances and separation of powers and divided government, she knows that you can't always have everything your way and that most times you won't. That you have to work with the other party to move the ball forward and make things better. To accomplish progressives goals and live up to your progressive values. Progressives are realists and govern from realism. The Socialist would probably say that moving the ball forward is not good enough. If people still live in poverty, don't have health insurance, are unemployed, aren't getting a good education, etc. And the reasons for this is that government is big enough and doesn't have enough responsibility in these areas. Which is where Bernie Sanders tends to operate from. He being an idealistic Socialist against the Pragmatic Progressive in Hillary Clinton.

Bernardo Santos Carmo: Judy Garland With Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin (1962)

Source:Bernardo Santos Carmo- Frank & Judy. 

Source:The Daily Review

"Judy, Frank and Dean Martin in this memorable 1962 show." 

From Bernardo Santos Carmo

You're going to have a harder time finding three better singers and really performers when you're talking about Judy, Frank and Dean, performing together on the same show, then Judy Garland, Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin. That is how big Judy Garland was and the amount of star power that she had that she could bring in those two great performers. The two top stars in the Rat Pack that she was friends with and worked with. 

I emphasize performers here, because Judy, Frank and Dean, were more than singers. They were all great singers as well, but they were entertainers. Dean Martin, an accomplished singer, actor and comedian. Frank Sinatra, the Chairman of the Board, The Voice, perhaps the singer of all-time, as well as an accomplished actor and someone with the comedic wit and timing of a great comedian. Judy Garland, accomplished singer and actress, who also had a great comedic wit and timing. You put these three together and also throw in that they're friends and you have a great show.